Fallacies in the Fine Tuning argument (challenge)

[leroy]

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.

We have talked about parsimony in the past multiple times, and we concluded (paraphrasing) that in the case or “draw” one should go for the most parsimonious hypothesis, an din this case naturalism is more parsimonious than ID……………………our point of disagreement is that I don’t think we have a draw. I think there is strong evidence that supports ID .

I don know what else to add...

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.

To be honest in my opinion it is very simple, an intelligent designer can create Finely Tuned (FT) stuff or non FT stuff……….. the fact that an intelligent designer decided to create a FT object, doesn’t mean that he is being constrained by that object, nor by anything else

For example a jeweler could ether:

1 create a ring with hard metals like silver and gold just as big as necessary, if the ring where a little bit smaller won’t fit in you finger……. It the ring where a little bit too big it would slip off the finger (this would be a FT ring, or to be specific the size of the ring would be FT)

Or

2 one can create a ring with elastic materials like robber bands, such that it doesn’t matter if the ring is not exactly as big as your finger, the elastic materials will accommodate to your finger , if the jeweler makes a mistake and makes the ring 5% smaller than requested, it wouldn’t be a big of a deal , it will still fit in the finger of his client. (the size of this ring is not FT, or at least is less FT than the first ring)

The thing is that if the Jeweler (the intelligent designer) decides to create ring 1 rather than ring 2. That doesn’t mean that he is constrained, he could have created ring 2 but he descended to create ring 1 ……………. And a Jeweler-God could have created an elastic type of Gold, or elastic fingers such that any ring would fit in any finger……. But he could also create hard gold and hard fingers like we have today such than only rings with a very specific size will fit in specific fingers.

In other words and Jeweler-God doesn’t *have* to fine tune anything he can create elastic rings and elastic fingers such that any ring fits in any finger…………. But he *can* fine tune rings and fingers if he wants.

In the same way, God could have created the universe with more flexible constants such that if you change the value of gravity 5% it doesn’t really matter stars would still form ……….. but for whatever reason he decided not to , he decided to create a universe where if you change gravity even a tiny bit, the whole universe would collapse , but in either case God is not being constrained

I did my best in explaining your mistake, if this is not good enough for you then read the article for a more robust answer, if you don’t want to read other sources then I don’t know what else to do

 

[leroy]

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

this is a respons to "
leroy said:
do you see why your objection is based on a straw man? Do you see how your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises?

Your is based on a straw man because nobody is claiming that God *had* to fine tune the universe…. God could have created a universe where planets and stars are sustained by a more flexible force rather than gravity.

It simply happened to be the case that he decided to create a universe with a non-flexible law of gravity. We was not constrained to do that, he could have invented another force,

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.

To be honest I am kind of lost, I don’t know what are you talking about

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.

Well we can talk about on whether if the fine tuning argument constrains God or not , this seems to be something that interests both

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.

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.

Yes but those are all long term benefits, natural selection and natural mechanisms in general don’t have foresight, natural selection can only act upon immediate (1 generation ) benefits

Let’s say that due to a random mutation an ancient ape is a little bit more curious on whether if there are tiny invisible things (microbes) than his brothers. What selective benefit does this ape has? (None)

In the long term this curiosity could lead to the discovery of microbes and then vaccines and other helpful stuff, but there is no short term benefit and therefore this curiosity it is hard to explain (given naturalism)

 

[SkepticThinker]

We have talked about parsimony in the past multiple times, and we concluded (paraphrasing) that in the case or “draw” one should go for the most parsimonious hypothesis, an din this case naturalism is more parsimonious than ID……………………our point of disagreement is that I don’t think we have a draw. I think there is strong evidence that supports ID .

I don know what else to add...

To be honest in my opinion it is very simple, an intelligent designer can create Finely Tuned (FT) stuff or non FT stuff……….. the fact that an intelligent designer decided to create a FT object, doesn’t mean that he is being constrained by that object, nor by anything else

For example a jeweler could ether:

1 create a ring with hard metals like silver and gold just as big as necessary, if the ring where a little bit smaller won’t fit in you finger……. It the ring where a little bit too big it would slip off the finger (this would be a FT ring, or to be specific the size of the ring would be FT)

Or

2 one can create a ring with elastic materials like robber bands, such that it doesn’t matter if the ring is not exactly as big as your finger, the elastic materials will accommodate to your finger , if the jeweler makes a mistake and makes the ring 5% smaller than requested, it wouldn’t be a big of a deal , it will still fit in the finger of his client. (the size of this ring is not FT, or at least is less FT than the first ring)

The thing is that if the Jeweler (the intelligent designer) decides to create ring 1 rather than ring 2. That doesn’t mean that he is constrained, he could have created ring 2 but he descended to create ring 1 ……………. And a Jeweler-God could have created an elastic type of Gold, or elastic fingers such that any ring would fit in any finger……. But he could also create hard gold and hard fingers like we have today such than only rings with a very specific size will fit in specific fingers.

In other words and Jeweler-God doesn’t *have* to fine tune anything he can create elastic rings and elastic fingers such that any ring fits in any finger…………. But he *can* fine tune rings and fingers if he wants.

In the same way, God could have created the universe with more flexible constants such that if you change the value of gravity 5% it doesn’t really matter stars would still form ……….. but for whatever reason he decided not to , he decided to create a universe where if you change gravity even a tiny bit, the whole universe would collapse , but in either case God is not being constrained

I did my best in explaining your mistake, if this is not good enough for you then read the article for a more robust answer, if you don’t want to read other sources then I don’t know what else to do

Gee, you're making it sound as though our universe with it's one life-sustaining planet was something of a fluke, or a one-off that just kind of happened by accident. Amid a whole bunch of non-life-sustaining universes. That doesn't sound like any kind of intelligent master plan to me. It sounds like an accident.

(Which I think is the opposite of what you're trying to argue ... ?)

 

[sayak83]

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

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.

Since the total probability is 1. If the probability of life permitting universe given God cannot be calculated, the probability of life permitting universe given the absence of God cannot also be calculated. Hence the entire paper is fallacious.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think there is strong evidence that supports ID . I don know what else to add

You could add your strong evidence. What has been adduced as evidence for an intelligent designer to date? Biblical prophecy has. A few arguments such as Craig's Kalam argument or the watchmaker argument have been offered, as has that the universe appears finely tuned and that life is too complex to have self-organized absent intelligent oversight.

None of those is good evidence for an intelligent designer, as they all have naturalistic explanations.

Do you have something you think is better than that in mind?

the fact that an intelligent designer decided to create a FT object, doesn’t mean that he is being constrained by that object, nor by anything else For example a jeweler could ether: 1 create a ring with hard metals like silver and gold just as big as necessary, if the ring where a little bit smaller won’t fit in you finger……. It the ring where a little bit too big it would slip off the finger (this would be a FT ring, or to be specific the size of the ring would be FT) Or 2 one can create a ring with elastic materials like robber bands, such that it doesn’t matter if the ring is not exactly as big as your finger, the elastic materials will accommodate to your finger , if the jeweler makes a mistake and makes the ring 5% smaller than requested, it wouldn’t be a big of a deal , it will still fit in the finger of his client. (the size of this ring is not FT, or at least is less FT than the first ring)

I don't think you understand what finely tuned means. The term implies that the fundamental physical constants such as the gravitational constant, electromagnetic force, and others are set at values that fall within a narrow range conducive to life, and that if these constants were even slightly different, the universe couldn't support the complexity necessary life and mind to exist.

In your example, the size of the finger determines what radius the ring must have to be large enough to fit on the finger yet not so big that it falls off whether metal or elastic. A ring maker trying to finely tune his ring to fit the finger is constrained by the size of the finger.

God could have created the universe with more flexible constants such that if you change the value of gravity 5% it doesn’t really matter stars would still form

Then what you're saying is that the world is NOT finely tuned - that these physical parameters could have been a lot of different values and still supported life and mind, which undermines the intelligent designer aspect it if any assortment of values would do.

Your is based on a straw man because nobody is claiming that God *had* to fine tune the universe

Perhaps YOU'RE not saying that, but those making the argument that the universe is finely tuned and that that requires an intelligent designer are.

Here's an animated cartoon of Yahweh and his mentor discussing this matter and a transcribed excerpt from the video. It begins just after the 9 minute mark (I instructed it to begin at the 544th second) with Yahweh making a brief comment followed by this response from his mentor:

Yahweh's mentor: "Will it? The question of fine tuning will be inevitable indeed, because each and every unknown that was attributed to your doing will eventually be discovered to be nature's doing. The question itself, however, will lead to an infinite regress. Why would you need to finely tune the laws of nature unless you are being restricted by some other laws beyond your control? And who created the laws that govern the necessity for god to fine tune the laws of nature? If these laws dictated the nature of your creation, then how could you be called omnipotent? How could you be called god if your creation could only be created in one kind of way? If the laws of nature could only be one kind of way to permit life, and the universe runs all on its own, then what does it need with a god? Because if that's the case, you didn't actually design anything. You merely followed a set of instructions. Whose instructions? The presence of an all-powerful god doesn't explain anything at all. In your current state, I'm afraid you are ridiculously superfluous."

those are all long term benefits

That's where we are today. Millions of years ago, the benefits were fewer, but being able to make clothes out of skins, to build shelters, to control fire, and to make and use simple tools conferred survival advantage the first day they were done.

Let’s say that due to a random mutation an ancient ape is a little bit more curious on whether if there are tiny invisible things (microbes) than his brothers. What selective benefit does this ape has? (None)

That ape has no interest in or concept of microbes, but it will be interested in fire and how to make better spears, and the discoveries it makes will foster its fecundity.

It's not important that you agree, nor is it likely that you can be made to agree to any idea that supports naturalism. You begin with an assumption that god exists, and you see the world through those eyes.

Thus, you promote ideas like these that evolution couldn't have done what it appears to have done by simply stating that there is no selective advantage to intelligence.

It's why you believe biblical scripture that says that a resurrection occurred, and that people allegedly witnessed it. It's why you say things like the universe is finely tuned when you think it supports your god's existence but that it could have been any other way when that argument limits that deity's options.

Without that a prior god belief, you'd hold none of those positions just I don't and none of the other skeptics do.

And there's no talking you out of any of it, because a man won't see what he has a stake in not seeing.

 

[PureX]

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

Logical reasoning is evidence. So is observation. You're trying to play the 'kangaroo judge', again, and appoint yourself the determiner of what is and is not evidence so you can declare any evidence that doesn't support your bias illegitimate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Logical reasoning is evidence

Nope. Evidence (noun) is what is evident (its adjectival counterpart) to the senses. Valid logic is what is applied to that evidence to derive sound conclusions from it.

You're trying to play the 'kangaroo judge', again, and appoint yourself the determiner of what is and is not evidence

Says the guy who just did exactly that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logical reasoning is evidence. So is observation. You're trying to play the 'kangaroo judge', again, and appoint yourself the determiner of what is and is not evidence so you can declare any evidence that doesn't support your bias illegitimate.

No, it is not. But a sound logical argument is a good reason to believe something. The problem is that you are just relying upon logical fallacies and cannot have a sound logical argument as a result. And no, as usual when you are wrong you try to make it personal. I did not such thing. I identified the flaws in your argument as did others. You have had no answer to any of us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

To even suggest that you need "faith" to accept the existence of DNA, tells us everything we need to know.

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.

Would you like some mayonnaise with that word salad?

 

[leroy]

You could add your strong evidence. What has been adduced as evidence for an intelligent designer to date? Biblical prophecy has. A few arguments such as Craig's Kalam argument or the watchmaker argument have been offered, as has that the universe appears finely tuned and that life is too complex to have self-organized absent intelligent oversight.

None of those is good evidence for an intelligent designer, as they all have naturalistic explanations.

Yes that is a good summary of arguments that I find convincing......but what I meant in this context is that eventhough intelligent design looses in terms of parsimony when compared to other naturalist hypothesis..... ID wins in terms of other criteria like explanatory scope, explanatory power , adhocness and other important criteria.

I don't think you understand what finely tuned means. The term implies that the fundamental physical constants such as the gravitational constant, electromagnetic force, and others are set at values that fall within a narrow range conducive to life, and that if these constants were even slightly different, the universe couldn't support the complexity necessary life and mind to exist.

Yes that is good explanation of what fine tuning means

In your example, the size of the finger determines what radius the ring must have to be large enough to fit on the finger yet not so big that it falls off whether metal or elastic. A ring maker trying to finely tune his ring to fit the finger is constrained by the size of the finger.

(With the argument presented in the video in mind)

do you agree on that a ring that perfectly fits your finger would be evidence for design (I assume your answer is yes)

So where do you think the analogy fails? Why arent the jeweler the fingerand the size of the ring analogous to god the universe and gravity

Then what you're saying is that the world is NOT finely tuned - that these physical parameters could have been a lot of different values and still supported life and mind, which undermines the intelligent designer aspect it if any assortment of values would do.

What I meant is that the current force of gravity (let's call it gravity A)is non flexible. If you change the value 1% the universe would not be life permitting

But God could have created a more flexible law instead of the current force of gravity (call it gravity B), such that if you change the values 1% or 10% or 50% it wouldn't matter life would still be possible .... (In this caste the universe would not be finely tuned)


But God didn't *need * to create a universe with "gravity A" he could have used " gravity B" he was not constrained by anyone to pick gravity A over gravity B

ring maker trying to finely tune his ring to fit the finger is constrained by the size of the finger

Ok granted..... Once God decided to create a universe with gravity A rather that gravity B ..... He is now constrained by the rigid force of gravity...... So sure in a way God is constrained by his own rules . But I don't see any theological problem with that....... God is not being constrained by a deeper law like your video suggests...... He is being constrained by his own rules and his own decisions.

Perhaps YOU'RE not saying that, but those making the argument that the universe is finely tuned and that that requires an intelligent designer are.

Can you quote anyone? Can you quote anyone who said that God *need* to fine tune the universe. .... Who is making that argument

Yahweh's mentor: "Will it? The question of fine tuning will be inevitable indeed, because each and every unknown that was attributed to your doing will eventually be discovered to be nature's doing. The question itself, however, will lead to an infinite regress. Why would you need to finely tune the laws of nature unless you are being restricted by some other laws beyond your control?

Ok do now see and understand the mistake made by the author of the video ?


God is not being restricted by other laws ... He created laws such that the parameters are finely tuned (he could have created laws with more flexible parameters)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes that is a good summary of arguments that I find convincing......but what I meant in this context is that eventhough intelligent design looses in terms of parsimony when compared to other naturalist hypothesis..... ID wins in terms of other criteria like explanatory scope, explanatory power , adhocness and other important criteria.

To clarify, when you say "ID," what do you mean?

The typical way it's formally defined by ID proponent organizations is that it's the assertion that evolution by itself cannot explan the history of life because that history includes events and features that would have been impossible without an intelligent designer. IOW, irreducible complexity is a core part of the assertion.

OTOH, I've seen lots of lay people use ID to just mean "I believe God, who I consider intelligent, designed this thing."

...and I'm not sure which sense you're using.

 

[Heyo]

So I return the challenge.
#1 Read the article.
#2 Copy (or summarize) an argument you want to make.

I especially want to encourage you to read the objections again. I haven't read them all, but it seems that he doesn't really have an answer to the Multiverse objection. I'd stress that one especially, if you want to make an FTA.

@leroy:

Just to bump my challenge, maybe it's too hard for you, maybe you just forgot.

Oh, and when you're at it, can you define what you mean by "naturalism"? (Or find a quote where the authors of the papers define it.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that is good explanation of what fine tuning means

[EDIT]



What I meant is that the current force of gravity (let's call it gravity A)is non flexible. If you change the value 1% the universe would not be life permitting

But God could have created a more flexible law instead of the current force of gravity (call it gravity B), such that if you change the values 1% or 10% or 50% it wouldn't matter life would still be possible .... (In this caste the universe would not be finely tuned)


But God didn't *need * to create a universe with "gravity A" he could have used " gravity B" he was not constrained by anyone to pick gravity A over gravity B

And here is how your argument fails. You are assuming that the force of gravity could have been different. You are assuming that it has been "fine tuned". We do not know if that is the case or not. In fact when it comes to gravity it may not be. In case you forgot when Sean Carroll debated WLC and refuted his attempted scientific apologetics for the existence of God Carroll mentioned how the expansion rate at the time of the Big Bang was not fine tuned. Its value was discovered to rely on a solution to the General Theory of Relativity. I have pointed this out to you in the past an linked both the debate and articles for you where he explained that.

This is why the fine tuning argument fails. It assumes that all of those various values are variable and we do not know if that is the case or not. The largest value used has been shown to be not fine tuned. When one claims that those values are fine tuned one takes on a burden of proof. One does not get to assume that they could have been different.

Can you prove that any of those values could have been different from what they are? I know that I cannot do so. Until those on the FT side prove that they do not even have a Fine Tuna. They have an argument that rotted head first, and it smells worse than a dead fish.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

eventhough intelligent design looses in terms of parsimony when compared to other naturalist hypothesis..... ID wins in terms of other criteria like explanatory scope, explanatory power , adhocness and other important criteria.

ID has no explanatory power.

Contrast creationism with naturalistic answers like the theory of evolution, which unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

Creationism does none of that.

do you agree on that a ring that perfectly fits your finger would be evidence for design (I assume your answer is yes)

No, not because it fit. If the ring were 24K gold, perfectly symmetric, and machined, then yes, but it's not the fit that suggests intelligent design.

What I meant is that the current force of gravity (let's call it gravity A)is non flexible. If you change the value 1% the universe would not be life permitting. But God could have created a more flexible law instead of the current force of gravity (call it gravity B), such that if you change the values 1% or 10% or 50% it wouldn't matter life would still be possible .... (In this caste the universe would not be finely tuned). But God didn't *need * to create a universe with "gravity A" he could have used " gravity B" he was not constrained by anyone to pick gravity A over gravity B

You seem to want to have it both ways - the universe could have been made any number of ways and still have supported life and mind, yet the universe that we see is finely tuned, meaning that it COULDN'T have been any other way and still have behaved like it does.

Once you introduce the idea that God could have made a universe supporting life and mind any number of ways - that he didn't NEED to do it the way we find reality - you are saying that the universe isn't finely tuned.

Think of a radio receiver. If there is just one frequency that corresponds to a radio station and all other frequencies yield static, then if the radio is tuned to that frequency, it's an argument that somebody tuned the radio. If it turns out that there are many frequencies to which the radio can be tuned and receive a radio station, then the argument for intelligent tuning weakens.

Can you quote anyone who said that God *need* to fine tune the universe. .... Who is making that argument

The creationists who make the fine-tuning argument are arguing that the universe needed to be the way it is to support life and mind, and that that is why an intelligent designer was needed.

Ok do now see and understand the mistake made by the author of the video ?

I disagree that a mistake was made in the video.

Your counterargument is simply claiming that the creator god wasn't constrained - that it had other options. But as I've indicted, that means that one can't call the universe any more finely tuned than the radio that can receive multiple radio stations at multiple frequencies.

Hey, Leroy, look at this. We found a topic we were both interested in discussing. I'm enjoying this debate. I hope that you are, too. Not once have you asked me to go back and find an old post that I say exists but that you didn't comment on upon its publication.

I hope that you'll comment on my counterargument that if one allows for a wide range of possible tunings that there is no longer a fine-tuning argument.

Also that saying that "God did it" has no explanatory or predictive unlike a scientific theory. I'm saying that such claims are not answers if answer means more than an unfalsifiable claim with no practical value EVEN IF CORRECT. You can't use creationism to develop new vaccines, for example.

 

[leroy]

ID has no explanatory power.

Contrast creationism with naturalistic answers like the theory of evolution, which unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

I am not saying that ID is as good as a scientific theory like the theory of evolution, all I am saying is on the question of fine tuning ID has more explanatory power than the naturalistic alternatives……….if you disagree then pick your favorite naturalistic alterative and lets see which one has more explanatory power

No, not because it fit. If the ring were 24K gold, perfectly symmetric, and machined, then yes, but it's not the fit that suggests intelligent design.

Ok lets change rings for radio frequencies

you seem to agree that If there is just one frequency that corresponds to a radio station and all other frequencies yield static, then if the radio is tuned to that frequency, it's an argument that somebody tuned the radio (in other words and argument for design) and I would argue that this is analogous to our universe………….. You obviously disagree , so in what way is this disanalogous to the universe?

Think of a radio receiver. If there is just one frequency that corresponds to a radio station and all other frequencies yield static, then if the radio is tuned to that frequency, it's an argument that somebody tuned the radio. If it turns out that there are many frequencies to which the radio can be tuned and receive a radio station, then the argument for intelligent tuning weakens.

If you live in a city where only 1 (or few) frequency corresponds to a radio station, then a if the radio is tuned to that frequency, it's an argument that somebody tuned the radio. (evidence for design)............. lets call this city A


If you live in a city where all (or many) frequencies correspond to radios stations then there is not much fine tuning involved and one can´t make an argument for design..............lets call this city B



With this in mind I would like to make 2 points

1 we both seem to agree that there is evidence for design in the tunning of the radio , I would argue that our universe is analogous to City A………….and presumably you disagree, so where do you think that the analogy breaks?

2 God could have created ether City A or City B ………… if God decided to create City A, a city with just 1 frequency that corresponds to a radio station, in what way is God being constrained ?

Your counterargument is simply claiming that the creator god wasn't constrained - that it had other options. But as I've indicted, that means that one can't call the universe any more finely tuned than the radio that can receive multiple radio stations at multiple frequencies.

No it doesnt follow
And there is no contradiction

1 God could have created a universe where life requires fine tuning or he could have created a universe where life doesn’t require fine tuning

2 given that he decided to create a universe where life requires fine tuning, then in this case and given this situation that God himself created then he *needs* to fine tune the universe such that life could be sustained……………….but God is not being constrained by other laws, like the video suggest , he is being contrained by the rules that he himself imposed.

Which of this 2 points do you find problematic?

I hope that you'll comment on my counterargument that if one allows for a wide range of possible tunings that there is no longer a fine-tuning argument.

I agree, if we life in a city like City B where all (or many) frequencies correspond to a radio station, then there is no fine tuning argument

The issue and my point of disagreement is that our universe is not analogous to this, in this universe we don have a wide range of life permitting values

Also that saying that "God did it" has no explanatory or predictive unlike a scientific theory.

, I am not saying that ID has the level of “scientific theory”

All I am saying is that it has more predictive and explanatory power than say the multiverse hypothesis or any other naturalistic alternative.

I'm saying that such claims are not answers if answer means more than an unfalsifiable claim with no practical value EVEN IF CORRECT. You can't use creationism to develop new vaccines, for example.

Disagree, but irrelevant, whether if ID has practical value or not has no bearing on weather if it´s true or not

unfalsifiable

The argument is falsifiable, as you said if there many radio frequencies that correspond to a radio station there wouldn’t be fine tuning and therefore no designer needed to tune the radio-.--------- if you show that rage of life permitting values is wide, then no FT needed and therefore no designer needed ………… in fact it could be that the discovery of deeper and more fundamental laws allow for a wide rage and the FT argument would be falsifiable




...

I think this conversation is moving towards the correct direction.

At this point we seem to agree on

1 if a radio is tuned in a radio station in a city where only 1 (or few) radio frequencies correspond to a radio station …….this would be evidence for a tuner (intelligent designer)

2 if all (or many) frequencies correspond to a radio station, then a radio tuned in to a radio station wouldn’t be evidence for design

We seem to agree with both points 1 and 2

The only question and the o point of disagreement is on whether if the universe is analogous to a world where only 1 (or few) frequencies lead to a radio station or if the universe is analogous to a world where all (or many ) frequencies lead to a radio station ………… so why do you think that the universe is analogues to the later and not the former?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

on the question of fine tuning ID has more explanatory power than the naturalistic alternatives……….if you disagree then pick your favorite naturalistic alterative and lets see which one has more explanatory power

All scientific theories have more explanatory and predictive power than any unfalsifiable claim, none of which have any of either. "God did it" is not an explanation and predicts nothing.

you seem to agree that If there is just one frequency that corresponds to a radio station and all other frequencies yield static, then if the radio is tuned to that frequency, it's an argument that somebody tuned the radio (in other words and argument for design) and I would argue that this is analogous to our universe………….. You obviously disagree , so in what way is this disanalogous to the universe?

Your claim is that the universe could have been other ways and still supported life and mind. If that were the case, then there is no fine-tuning.

Furthermore, the multiverse hypotheses accounts for universes supporting life and mind whether fine-tuning is a thing or not, and does so without invoking a sentient creator, i.e., is more parsimonious.

God could have created ether City A or City B ………… if God decided to create City A, a city with just 1 frequency that corresponds to a radio station, in what way is God being constrained ?

If a god had choices, it was not constrained. If a god could go ahead and retune the physical parameters to any other combination that works, that's analogous to the second radio - the one that one can be dialed to multiple frequencies and pick up a radio station.

God could have created a universe where life requires fine tuning or he could have created a universe where life doesn’t require fine tuning

What you don't seem to understand is that such a universe is NOT fine-tuned. The fine tuning problem assumes constraints. Absent those constraints, there are multiple tunings possible and the term fine-tuning doesn't apply. The presence of life and mind aren't difficult to explain if there are multiple ways and multiple types of universes where that can occur.

I don't intend to go further with this. There is nothing more that is relevant for either of us to add to what has been said.

If you don't yet understand the difference between there being only one way possible to do something, that that is a constraint which constrains the engineering possibilities to one, that the building of which yields a finely tuned reality consistent with intelligent design, and there being many ways to doing that something meaning that none of the universes with any of the assortment of parameters that work are finely-tuned, then we are at an impasse.

And I don't think you do or will. I expect you to keep repeating yourself without addressing that objection. If that happens, we're done, and I won't repeat my same argument again. If you can't insert a new idea here or falsify mine - if all you can offer is that you find the intelligent designer hypothesis better because you think it explains and predicts more, which you have already said more than once and which I have rejected with counterargument as yet unaddressed by you, then you needn't repeat any of that again. You need to either support those claims with evidenced argument or falsify my counterarguments if you have and can provide think they're wrong. You need to offer something new.

If you can't do that, we've reached the end of this discussion.

All I am saying is that it has more predictive and explanatory power than say the multiverse hypothesis or any other naturalistic alternative.

So you say. I say it has none of either. How is "God did it" more of an explanation that Norm did it or it did it itself? What are your predictions for the future if I stipulate to intelligent design being a fact?

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok then support your claim, under what basis do you affirm that the argument has many logical fallacies, which fallacies have you observed?

Have you observed any fallacies in an article written by a scholar?

 

[leroy]

And here is how your argument fails. You are assuming that the force of gravity could have been different. You are assuming that it has been "fine tuned". We do not know if that is the case or not. In fact when it comes to gravity it may not be. In case you forgot when Sean Carroll debated WLC and refuted his attempted scientific apologetics for the existence of God Carroll mentioned how the expansion rate at the time of the Big Bang was not fine tuned. Its value was discovered to rely on a solution to the General Theory of Relativity. I have pointed this out to you in the past an linked both the debate and articles for you where he explained that.

This is why the fine tuning argument fails. It assumes that all of those various values are variable and we do not know if that is the case or not. The largest value used has been shown to be not fine tuned. When one claims that those values are fine tuned one takes on a burden of proof. One does not get to assume that they could have been different.

Can you prove that any of those values could have been different from what they are? I know that I cannot do so. Until those on the FT side prove that they do not even have a Fine Tuna. They have an argument that rotted head first, and it smells worse than a dead fish.

That has been explained to you multiple times.

When proponents of the argument say that there are many possible values, what they mean is that the current values are not metaphysically necessary….. in other words that there are possible worlds where the values could have been different.

The FT argument would work equally good (in fact much better) even if in the real world the values could have not been different.

I have pointed this out to you in the past an linked both the debate and articles for you where he explained that.

no you never linked any article

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has been explained to you multiple times.

When proponents of the argument say that there are many possible values, what they mean is that the current values are not metaphysically necessary….. in other words that there are possible worlds where the values could have been different.

The FT argument would work equally good (in fact much better) even if in the real world the values could have not been different.



no you never linked any article

No, you are merely repeating your refuted nonsense. Try again, And yes, in the past I linked both.

Here is a hint, when you use the word "metaphysical" in a physics discussion you are admitting that you are wrong.+

 

[HonestJoe]

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

I think it makes the inevitable human mistake of assuming life (and human life specifically) is special. What is it that makes the way in which a set of elements came together to make a living cell any more significant that the elements that came together to make a star, a rock or a gas cloud? Why would the fact we exist matter to the universe any more (or less) than any other complex set of interacting elements?

The other flawed assumption would be that "fine tuning" of the universe (or some small part of it for all we know) automatically implies the existence of something anywhere close to our general concept of a god (and the fact they capitalise the word is telling). Even if there is (or was?) some kind of "fine tuner", there is absolutely no reason it would be something even within the scope of our imagination, let alone one of the few very specific anthropomorphic beings homo sapiens have come up with.

I feel that they've started with a conclusion and are working back from it. That is why they come up with the unspoken assumption that the universe is like one that would be created by a (their?) god, with the special and unique humans requiring a fine tuned environment to even exist. Unsurprisingly, those assumptions lead to a conclusion for the existence of God.