leroy
Well-Known Member
Its not clear from that post, exactly what is your point of disagreement...... Why you think premise 2 is wrong?
That definition is ok
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God
- Thread starter leroy
- Start date
That definition is ok
leroy
Well-Known Member
No FT doesn't imply preconceive design (according to the definition that i or my sources provided)
Why is that relevant?
Heyo
Veteran Member
It handwaves away necessity and chance without explanation.
I think both are possible explanations just one assumption away. Like a designer is just one assumption. (They all have consistence problems (necessity possibly not) but chance and designer lead to more question than they answer.)
Because your premises are nonsense.
I mean, you haven't even justified that the universe we have is unlikely.
For instance, what range of values have you decided are possible for the gravitational constant (and how did you justify your conclusion)? If you can't answer that - and do the same for all the other constants you referred to - then you're just talking out of your butt.
... or more likely, you're repeating William Lane Craig talking out of his butt.
leroy
Well-Known Member
And my answer was
1 the Bolzman brain paradox refutes any chance hypothesis
2 the fact that there are multiple independent values makes necesity implausible
For more detail you can go to the sources in the OP....... And feel. Free to quote any point of disagreement.
...............
Design only makes 1 assumption "the existence of a designer is possible" which something that even an agnostic would grant......
If you understood Craig's argument, you would realize that it's completely relevant.
Edit: have you even read the links in your OP that you say you agree with?
That's not a definition, it still has unjustified premises, and even if you managed to justify them, it still wouldn't get you to any reasonable definition of "fine tuning."
The word "tuning" implies an intentional act. It's intellectually dishonest to use the term until you've actually provided a good reason to think that there was an intent behind it.
Last edited:
Since you apparently couldn't be bothered to read the argument you say you agree with, here's a section from the second link in your OP to help you out (emphasis mine):
Usually, what people mean is that if the quantity or constant were to be altered just a little bit either way – say it was a little more or it was a little less – then that would upset the life-permitting balance and life would be impossible. To give a couple of examples. P. C. W. Davies, a British physicist, has estimated that if you were to alter the force of gravity or the weak force which is in the atomic nucleus, by only one part out of 10100 the universe would be life prohibiting.[3] It would be impossible for the universe to permit life.
To give you an idea of what these numbers are like, if you have something that is one chance out of 10^60 (which is inconceivably smaller than 10^100) that would be like throwing a random dart across the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting a target one inch in diameter. That is what we are talking about when we say that these constants and quantities are fine-tuned for our existence. Imagine a random dart thrown twenty billion light years across the universe and it has to hit a target one inch in diameter in order for the universe to be life-permitting, if it was 10^60, but in fact it is 1 out of 10^100. And that just one quantity – gravity or the weak force. And you’ve got loads of these constants and quantities that all have to be precisely fine-tuned in that way or the universe wouldn’t be life-permitting.
There is one other way, however, in which we can understand this fine-tuning. The other way is in which we could imagine the possible range of values that these quantities and constants might take. [draws a diagram on the board] What you do is calculate the life-permitting range that the value would have to fall in. You can see that we are allowing that there is a good deal of latitude in the life-permitting range. It could vary. It is not as though if you just varied it by one part out of 10^100 life wouldn’t exist. No. There is a range of values that would be life-permitting. But, nevertheless, when you compare the life-permitting range to the entire range of possible values, it is so small that the odds of this constant or quantity falling into the life-permitting range are next to infinitesimal. If it were just by accident that it were to have the value it does, it would fall somewhere outside the life-permitting range. So for example Robin Collins has compared the fine-tuning of some of these constants and quantities to a radio dial like before they had the digital radios. You used to have to tune the knob and line it up to be right on the bandwidth so you get the clear station. He said for you to dial in the station that would permit life to exist in the universe would be like having a radio dial that would be the breadth of the entire known universe and you would have to dial into about two-and-a-half centimeters in order to get into the life-permitting range. Just think of that. If these constants and quantities just fell into this range, the odds are astronomically more probable that it would fall somewhere outside of that narrow life-permitting range. If it were just by accident they wouldn’t all – all of them! - fall into those narrow life-permitting ranges.
So again: what is "the entire range of possible values" for the gravitational constant?
... and show your work.
OK, we may be using different definitions and talking past each other. How are you defining FT?
Because it illustrates the puddle paradox. It references animals visibly evolving to fit their environment, rather than an environment designed to fit their current forms.[/QUOTE]
leroy
Well-Known Member
Unlikely and fine tunning are 2 different things
Yes
,
For example?
No it doesn't...... You can have FT without intent, you can have intent without FT.
leroy
Well-Known Member
I dont know........ It could be 1, it could be 2 it could be 10000000000000.
Choose your favorite number, the argument would still be unafected,
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ft simply means that if you change the vaules of the constants you will have a life prohibiting universe in most of the cases
So???? Are you suggesting that things "gravity" evolved to have the correct values?
Or are you suggesting that life evolved to fit gravity?
O perhaps the universe evolved?
Explain your puddle analogy
You just don't get it. I give up. I'm not going to waste any more effort.
leroy
Well-Known Member
It's not that i dont get it, I am simply not willing to follow your red herrings.
You have to explain why you disagree with the claim that the universe is not FT.......
Your claims /questions about improbability, gravity WLC etc are just dishonest attempts to change the topic abd avoid an answer.
joelr
Well-Known Member
I didn't say this would be definitive proof. Maybe this pillar of smoke (fire at night) which speaks in a loud voice would cooperate and float around in one spot and allow scientists to test it. Maybe it would speak to scientists and give answers to equations and explain how to unify gravity with quantum mechanics?
Instead of sending Satan to plague a city and kill 70,000 people Yahweh can send his agent to scientists to demonstrate supernatural ability to manifest a virus that would have a 100% mortality rate but also show how the virus can be contained by this being so no one else catches it (because that's what already happened). So he could manifest it in a lab but make sure no one catches it (hopefully).
To a believer this stuff is real so it isn't unreasonable to say this could happen. These would be examples of evidence based on actual events in the eyes of a believer.
joelr
Well-Known Member
First we have to separate deisim from theism. Some creator that may have started a universe or even started life is a deistic concept and a different argument. I still say the evidence for that is crap and we have already been over the idea of life being created and are now on the fine tuning argument which is a bit less crap.
But, the evidence that any theism is real is 100% crap. Do you think there is any good evidence for Lord Krishna being a real historical demigod? Probably not. The bible is no exception and looks and reads exactly like myth.
We can break down every single aspect starting with the beginning of the OT being taken from Canaanite and Mesopotamian myths, everything after 5BC being a Persian influenced myth and it just gets worse from there.
Fine tuning may be an interesting debate but even if we established the universe must have been tuned for life this does not mean that any supposed "prophet" was actually getting messages from any God. The idea that this god communicated science and morality that was already established during the time period, vague prophecies that mostly didn't happen, tribalistic ideas about killing other nations because they had a different religion and modeled it's theology after trends that were already happening in other religions and then had the authors write things down in a style only used in fiction (including transforming older stories line by line), and every nation had a version but each one says their God says the others are crap, is not an idea that can be taken serious. The evidence is crap.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Because a chair is a man-made object. We don't know what made the universe. We are trying to establish what's more likely. So if you want to ask the question honestly then this is how it's done. You can't just take the constants and say "look, it's fine-tuned".
Like I said one fine tuning turned out to be "1" upon further investigation. A unified physics might make everything very simple. We don't know this yet.
When weighing naturalism vs deisim this is just one of many questions we can ask. A universe created for life should be ready to create life. A universe that arose and life came by happenstance would look more like what our universe is. Low entropy, no chance of life as we know it, 2 elements (bit of deuterium), lot of stuff has to happen. It might or it might not.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It won't do any good, since the OP relies on a source that has no understanding of physics, but here is an article by a modern physicist that refutes WLC's ignorance:
Physicist Sean Carroll Dismisses Fine Tuning Argument
First off those pushing the FT argument cannot even demonstrate that fine tuning exists:
' “I will start granting that [life couldn’t exist with different conditions] once someone tells me the conditions under which life can exist.” We don’t even fully understand life on this planet, nor do we understand it on the other planets in the universe that hold life (if any), nor do we understand it within the other possible universes (if any).'
Second the argument relies on limiting God and is actually an argument for naturalism:
'God can do anything, and he isn’t limited by the parameters of the universe. If life were impossible naturally, God could make it happen anyway. Carroll says about theism, “No matter what the atoms were doing, God could still create life.” That means that apparent fine tuning points to naturalism, since it must do everything naturally and can’t fallback on magic. If you insist that the parameters must be just so, then you’re arguing for naturalism.'
This third part I copied the full argument, since it is rather important in regards to expansion:
'
3. Illusory fine tuning
Some apparent fine tuning vanishes on closer inspection. The expansion rate of the early universe is often cited as one example of fine tuning. In fact, Stephen Hawking in his A Brief History of Time says that it was tuned to 10–17, to the delight of apologists. What they avoid quoting is Hawking just a few pages later:
The rate of expansion of the universe [in the inflationary model] would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen.
Carroll makes the same point when he says that the apparent fine tuning vanishes when you look to general relativity. The probability of the universe expanding as it did wasn’t 10–17; it was 1.'
In other words the fine tuning that we see for the expansion of the universe is natural, it is not fine tuning. When can do the math and does it one finds no fine tuning in the gravitational constant.
Fourth the multiverse is not a stretch, it is what is predicted by physics:
Carroll disagrees that the multiverse is extravagant: “It’s a prediction of a simple physical model.” The multiverse hypothesis can make testable predictions. He showed a graph of the density of dark matter in the universe as an example. “You do not see graphs like this in the theological papers trying to give God credit for explaining the fine tuning because theism is not well defined.”
And lastly theism is not the default. Far too many theists make that error. Even if naturalism was refuted that is not evidence for theism.
Then he goes on and tries to do what theists need to do. He wrote down what theism predicts, according to him, and what we observe. Theists never come up with proper tests for their beliefs so they have no grounds to complain when others do their homework for them:
'
Which worldview predicts best?
He went on to contrast the predictive success of theism vs. naturalism.
Sorry for the massive cut and paste, but I figured that some will be too lazy to read the article.
Physicist Sean Carroll Dismisses Fine Tuning Argument
First off those pushing the FT argument cannot even demonstrate that fine tuning exists:
' “I will start granting that [life couldn’t exist with different conditions] once someone tells me the conditions under which life can exist.” We don’t even fully understand life on this planet, nor do we understand it on the other planets in the universe that hold life (if any), nor do we understand it within the other possible universes (if any).'
Second the argument relies on limiting God and is actually an argument for naturalism:
'God can do anything, and he isn’t limited by the parameters of the universe. If life were impossible naturally, God could make it happen anyway. Carroll says about theism, “No matter what the atoms were doing, God could still create life.” That means that apparent fine tuning points to naturalism, since it must do everything naturally and can’t fallback on magic. If you insist that the parameters must be just so, then you’re arguing for naturalism.'
This third part I copied the full argument, since it is rather important in regards to expansion:
'
3. Illusory fine tuning
Some apparent fine tuning vanishes on closer inspection. The expansion rate of the early universe is often cited as one example of fine tuning. In fact, Stephen Hawking in his A Brief History of Time says that it was tuned to 10–17, to the delight of apologists. What they avoid quoting is Hawking just a few pages later:
The rate of expansion of the universe [in the inflationary model] would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen.
Carroll makes the same point when he says that the apparent fine tuning vanishes when you look to general relativity. The probability of the universe expanding as it did wasn’t 10–17; it was 1.'
In other words the fine tuning that we see for the expansion of the universe is natural, it is not fine tuning. When can do the math and does it one finds no fine tuning in the gravitational constant.
Fourth the multiverse is not a stretch, it is what is predicted by physics:
Carroll disagrees that the multiverse is extravagant: “It’s a prediction of a simple physical model.” The multiverse hypothesis can make testable predictions. He showed a graph of the density of dark matter in the universe as an example. “You do not see graphs like this in the theological papers trying to give God credit for explaining the fine tuning because theism is not well defined.”
And lastly theism is not the default. Far too many theists make that error. Even if naturalism was refuted that is not evidence for theism.
Then he goes on and tries to do what theists need to do. He wrote down what theism predicts, according to him, and what we observe. Theists never come up with proper tests for their beliefs so they have no grounds to complain when others do their homework for them:
'
Which worldview predicts best?
He went on to contrast the predictive success of theism vs. naturalism.
- Theism predicts that God’s existence would be obvious (in fact, the evidence is poor, and faith is not only required but celebrated)
- Theism predicts that religious belief should be universal; there should be just a single, correct religion (in fact, we have thousands of denominations within just Christianity, plus many thousand more other religions)
- Theism predicts that religious doctrines would be permanent (in fact, they evolve and adapt to social conditions)
- Theism predicts that moral teachings would be transcendent and progressive (in fact, Western society rejected slavery and embraced civil rights in spite of Christianity, not because of it)
- Theism predicts that sacred texts would provide practical advice like how to stay healthy
- Theism predicts that life is designed (in fact, evolution explains life’s Rube Goldberg features)
- Theism predicts a mind independent of the body (in fact, “mind” changes as the brain grows or is damaged, or even if one is tired or hungry)
- Theism predicts a fundamentally just world without gratuitous evil (in fact, the Problem of Evil is often cited as Christianity’s toughest challenge)
Sorry for the massive cut and paste, but I figured that some will be too lazy to read the article.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science said stone philosophy.
God O stone mass from which I abstract mass to build my machines.
God exists allowing my invention.
God is physical. So is his machine.
Consciousness owner first physical bio life. Only uses thinking as a non physical ideal. Gases.
To get a gas gas to convert God physical mass. How he owned God in science.
Humans were life supported by the planet mass that they stood on.
Human natural life claim to I own God first.
All statements just a human thinking. Just a human talking. Spirit term I think inside gas state. Spirit.
Thinking however is not spirit. Owns physical human want.
How lying as you live was invented. In human thinking conditions.
God. Human terms.
Spirit of God. Science term gases.
Father. Adult human by sexual conditions.
Same as mother. Human.
Adult father invented science.
Memory says. Original life DNA father spiritual. Did not invent science that activated God attack
Life still living only because original father did not invent science by his thinking.
God the planet exists attacked yet survived conversion.
Humans living know God planet presence supports living conditions.
Why God is important to life survival.
Human teachings. Said by humans on behalf of humans. Only whilst you live.
God O stone mass from which I abstract mass to build my machines.
God exists allowing my invention.
God is physical. So is his machine.
Consciousness owner first physical bio life. Only uses thinking as a non physical ideal. Gases.
To get a gas gas to convert God physical mass. How he owned God in science.
Humans were life supported by the planet mass that they stood on.
Human natural life claim to I own God first.
All statements just a human thinking. Just a human talking. Spirit term I think inside gas state. Spirit.
Thinking however is not spirit. Owns physical human want.
How lying as you live was invented. In human thinking conditions.
God. Human terms.
Spirit of God. Science term gases.
Father. Adult human by sexual conditions.
Same as mother. Human.
Adult father invented science.
Memory says. Original life DNA father spiritual. Did not invent science that activated God attack
Life still living only because original father did not invent science by his thinking.
God the planet exists attacked yet survived conversion.
Humans living know God planet presence supports living conditions.
Why God is important to life survival.
Human teachings. Said by humans on behalf of humans. Only whilst you live.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Theism said life de evolved due to past pyramid science attack.
Mutated life. Life cell changed including nature garden.
Is not evolution.
It was healing.
Conditions to heal. You continue.to practice human sex. Even though human mutated cell life by Adam.eve nuclear event. Only small amount expressed human genetics survived.
Brother killed brother by God fission event.
Oxygen re generated returned in re icing of melted ice history. No science machines.
Christ gas spirit returned. Cooled by new ice. Water replacement evaporation of ground spirit water. Atmospheric activated flooding. Over a forty year history.
Life returned reincarnated as it healed. Is not evolution. Gases same natural history removed by mass converting body earth.
Not just a flood. Flooding itself. What we still endure. Irradiation effect. Radiation still releasing from God mass. Known aware taught human science choice. Historic.
Historic science caused.
Gases put back in space as mass by wandering star bodies. Our heavens saved by the saviour stars.
Relative science healing advice.
Mutated life returned healed.
A small amount of human owned body genetics allowed science to quote life mutated into ape looking human. Genetic markers claim human bodies. Did not claim ape bodies.
The apes were probably eradicated. And new ape life emerged out of monkey families who all mutated also. As gigantism was reintroduced in atmospheric irradiation conditions.