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

[Heyo]

Design only makes 1 assumption "the existence of a designer is possible" which something that even an agnostic would grant......

I do grant that. I even grant that FT is the best argument for god. But it still is far from a proof.

Necessity only makes 1 assumption: "There is an underlying theory we haven't found yet, that connects all independent variables." And even if you think

2 the fact that there are multiple independent values makes necesity implausible

you can't simply rule it out like in the second premise.

Chance only makes one 1 assumption: "There are multiple universes." And

1 the Bolzman brain paradox refutes any chance hypothesis

No, it doesn't. I could go into detail how we don't know how probable Boltzmann Brains are compared to the number of possible universes but I make it simple:
Even if I live in a Boltzmann Brain universe, it is still a possible universe without a creator.

You can't exclude necessity (as you admitted) and you can't exclude chance (as I showed). So it all comes down to probabilities. And those are very hard to argue when we have a sample size of one.

And I haven't even touched on the implications that a creator would have.

 

[leroy]

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.

And why couldn’t a skeptic simply say _”it´s a god of the gaps” just because we don’t know how that stuff happened, it doesn’t mean God did it?

 

[leroy]

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.

The evidence is crap

Yes, but why? Considering my comments and my sources, ¿where is the mistake? Where is the logical fallacy? Do you have a conclusive defeater? – why is the evidence crap?

 

[leroy]

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.

Those are very interesting points, but you said that “overtunning = design is unlikelly” I simply what you to justify that assertion…………..how does “overrunning in the universe is evidnece for “no design”

The claim made by Carlol (and that you supported) indicates that since the universe has many galaxies and many stars (low entropy) and since we simply need 1 star it follows “no design”………I simply what you to justify that assertion.

The chair example was just an analogy, sure a chair that can support 2,000kg is more resistant that what we need if the purpose is to support a human…. But that wouldn’t indicate that the chais was not designed…………..maybe the “chair maker” had an additional purpose in mind,

So please, don’t move away from this particular topic, and explain how does overtunning (low entropy) indicates “no design”?

 

[leroy]

I do grant that. I even grant that FT is the best argument for god. But it still is far from a proof.

That is raising the bar too high, obviously I don’t have proof for God-.--- but I would argue that there are good arguments for the existence of God, and not as good arguments for atheism. … the FT is just one of the many arguments for the existence of god that I find compelling.

Necessity only makes 1 assumption: "There is an underlying theory we haven't found yet, that connects all independent variables." And even if you think

The thing is that these variables are seemingly independent, why would there be a law that determines the size of the electron + the force of gravity + the density of matter…………….and even more important why would that law conspire to produce a life permitting universe?

Imagine that you go to another planet, you look at the sky and the clouds form letters words and sentences (say the gospel of John in english).you would obviously conclude “design” then imagine that the aliens tell you that there is a law that control the shape of clouds and that this combination of letters is the only possible combination given this law…………..would you drop your design hypothesis?....................my point is that I don’t see how “necessity” would remove the need for a designer, at most it would move the designer one step backwards.




But the good news is that this is testable and falsifiable stuff, soon scientists will discover and understand the deeper laws of nature and we will find out if this solves the FT problem or if these makes the FT problem even harder.

.

]Chance only makes one 1 assumption: "There are multiple universes." And

No, it doesn't. I could go into detail how we don't know how probable Boltzmann Brains are compared to the number of possible universes but I make it simple:
Even if I live in a Boltzmann Brain universe, it is still a possible universe without a creator.

You can't exclude necessity (as you admitted) and you can't exclude chance (as I showed). So it all comes down to probabilities. And those are very hard to argue when we have a sample size of one.

And I haven't even touched on the implications that a creator would have.

Sure my claim is that even if there is a multiverse, and even if each universe has different values chance would fail because of the BB paradox.

Simple universes with say 1 star and 1 planet would be much more abundant than complex universes like ours with many stars and galaxies.

Any disagreement at this point? (I am talking specifically about the stuff in orange letters)

 

[viole]

G-d created/s through the natural processes, please. Right, please?

Regards

What G-d? I find the idea that a God exists and created the Universe totally implausible.

ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why couldn’t a skeptic simply say _”it´s a god of the gaps” just because we don’t know how that stuff happened, it doesn’t mean God did it?

So you still do not understand how you are using the God of the Gaps argument. No one is claiming that God did not do it. If we made that mistake then we would be making the same error that you make.

Let me try to explain atheism to you. When it comes to rational beliefs the starting point is the null hypothesis. One does not believe a claim until there is sufficient evidence to support it. That is the null hypothesis. It is not a statement that something does not exist. It is simply an acknowledgement that it is foolish to believe in something without evidence.

This is why people suggest that you drop God and say "Bigfoot did it". One can see how silly a claim is when one uses a figure that one does not have an emotional investment in and uses that in the same way that you use God. Would you believe that Bigfoot did it without actual evidence that Bigfoot did it? I hope not. You can see the obvious the fact that we do not have any evidence about Bigfoot either way does not mean a lack of evidence for an idea is evidence for Bigfoot. The FT argument is just a big argument saying "You don't have evidence for how these numbers came about (and as my post that refuted you pointed out that is not always the case) therefore God. Simply take out "God" and put in "Bigfoot" and you should be able to see that this is a silly silly argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is raising the bar too high, obviously I don’t have proof for God-.--- but I would argue that there are good arguments for the existence of God, and not as good arguments for atheism. … the FT is just one of the many arguments for the existence of god that I find compelling.

But as has been shown repeatedly it is not a good argument for God. If this is your best argument then you have lost.

Sure my claim is that even if there is a multiverse, and even if each universe has different values chance would fail because of the BB paradox.

Simple universes with say 1 star and 1 planet would be much more abundant than complex universes like ours with many stars and galaxies.

Any disagreement at this point? (I am talking specifically about the stuff in orange letters)

Nope, there is no "BB paradox" there was only massive handwaving by you that did not support your argument. You need more than mere handwaving to win a debate.

 

[Valjean]

And why couldn’t a skeptic simply say _”it´s a god of the gaps” just because we don’t know how that stuff happened, it doesn’t mean God did it?

Do you understand that "god-of-the-gaps" is a sort of joke expression, making fun of creationists' recurring tactic of pointing to gaps in knowledge or in a sequence as evidence of God's handiwork? Every time the 'gap' is filled in the theists point to another one.
It never ends.

"Goddidit," by the way, is not an explanation, it's an assignment of agency. It explains nothing. It tells us nothing of the mechanism involved -- which is all science is interested in.

 

[Heyo]

That is raising the bar too high, obviously I don’t have proof for God-.--- but I would argue that there are good arguments for the existence of God, and not as good arguments for atheism. … the FT is just one of the many arguments for the existence of god that I find compelling.

I am, obviously, of a different opinion but now will stick with the FT argument, will we?

The thing is that these variables are seemingly independent, why would there be a law that determines the size of the electron + the force of gravity + the density of matter…………….and even more important why would that law conspire to produce a life permitting universe?

Something like String Theory (misnomer) could at least predict all the properties of all the particles.
And as I said our universe isn't that much life producing, we are a fluke.

Imagine that you go to another planet, you look at the sky and the clouds form letters words and sentences (say the gospel of John in english).you would obviously conclude “design” then imagine that the aliens tell you that there is a law that control the shape of clouds and that this combination of letters is the only possible combination given this law…………..would you drop your design hypothesis?....................my point is that I don’t see how “necessity” would remove the need for a designer, at most it would move the designer one step backwards.

Right to the old question (which would come up anyway) "Who designed the designer?".
But since we keep to the FT argument, we simply note that premise 2 isn't sound as it categorically dismisses necessity which we have found is not supportable.

But the good news is that this is testable and falsifiable stuff, soon scientists will discover and understand the deeper laws of nature and we will find out if this solves the FT problem or if these makes the FT problem even harder.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Sure my claim is that even if there is a multiverse, and even if each universe has different values chance would fail because of the BB paradox.

Simple universes with say 1 star and 1 planet would be much more abundant than complex universes like ours with many stars and galaxies.

Any disagreement at this point? (I am talking specifically about the stuff in orange letters)

I could go on about how that would be impossible in any universe that springs from a Big Bang as, even without an inflationary phase, the anisotropy could never be so big that only one solar system could form and not immediately fall back into a Big Crunch, but let me take you to a Gedankenexperiment. Let's assume, without any reason, that our universe with 100 billion galaxies is a really big universe, even the biggest possible. Let's also assume an even distribution of sizes. (We again have no reason to do so but we also have no reason not to do so.)
Now, how many universes are there with a 10 digit number of galaxies, how many with a 9 digit number, how many with 8. You see where this is going?

Now, how likely are simple universes?

 

[leroy]

So you still do not understand how you are using the God of the Gaps argument. No one is claiming that God did not do it. If we made that mistake then we would be making the same error that you make.

Let me try to explain atheism to you. When it comes to rational beliefs the starting point is the null hypothesis. One does not believe a claim until there is sufficient evidence to support it. That is the null hypothesis. It is not a statement that something does not exist. It is simply an acknowledgement that it is foolish to believe in something without evidence.

This is why people suggest that you drop God and say "Bigfoot did it". One can see how silly a claim is when one uses a figure that one does not have an emotional investment in and uses that in the same way that you use God. Would you believe that Bigfoot did it without actual evidence that Bigfoot did it? I hope not. You can see the obvious the fact that we do not have any evidence about Bigfoot either way does not mean a lack of evidence for an idea is evidence for Bigfoot. The FT argument is just a big argument saying "You don't have evidence for how these numbers came about (and as my post that refuted you pointed out that is not always the case) therefore God. Simply take out "God" and put in "Bigfoot" and you should be able to see that this is a silly silly argument.

And my question is and has always been “what evidence would you accept for God / (or Design) that couldn’t be dismissed with "ohh it’s a God of the Gaps?

I am not saying “we don’t know therefore God”……………. I am saying “based on the information that we have to date, God is the best explanation for FT, among all the alternatives that have been proposed and discussed in the literature”……….

 

[leroy]

But as has been shown repeatedly it is not a good argument for God. If this is your best argument then you have lost.



Nope, there is no "BB paradox" there was only massive handwaving by you that did not support your argument. You need more than mere handwaving to win a debate.

I have no problem in justifying any of my assertions,. Just tell me which point do you disagree with?


for example do you disagree with this statement?

Simple universes with say 1 star and 1 planet would be much more abundant than complex universes like ours with many stars and galaxies.

 

[leroy]

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.

• 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.

Here is the thing, I disagree with the author of that source, so I will quote a specific point of disagreement, and explain why I disagree………..I will not say “ohhh it´s an atheist source therefore I will reject it by default”

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).'

If you change the values, in most cases you will not have atoms, molecules, stars planets, chemistry etc……….for example if gravity would have been a little bit stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole.

The claim is that without have atoms, molecules, stars planets, and /or chemistry…..you cant have life of any kind, no humans, no dogs, no bacteria, no aliens etc………….. While it is true that nobody has ever seen an alien, I think is fair to assume that it is made out of atoms.

So while I not claiming to be 100% sure; it seems reasonable to conclude that you can’t have life (let alone intelligent life) without atoms, life cant evolve if a black hole is all there is, life cant evolve if you don’t have a star, or some other source of energy, life cant evolve in a universe without chemistry

Would you say that it is reasonable possible to have life of any kind without atoms, molecules, stars planets, chemistry etc?

---

See the difference? I am not simply claiming that the source is wrong, I am not repeating like a parrot “there is no evidence” “the evidence is flawed”……. But rather I identified a point that I disagree with and I explain why I disagree , I am expecting you to do the same with my comments and sources…….. look for a point of disagreement in any of my comments, (or sources) quote it and explain why you disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And my question is and has always been “what evidence would you accept for God / (or Design) that couldn’t be dismissed with "ohh it’s a God of the Gaps?

I am not saying “we don’t know therefore God”……………. I am saying “based on the information that we have to date, God is the best explanation for FT, among all the alternatives that have been proposed and discussed in the literature”……….

I am not certain what evidence it would take to convince me. If there was a God he would know. But the fact that no one can present any evidence for a God is rather telling.

And the reason that people keep pointing your use of a God of the Gaps fallacy is because you have presented no evidence. You do not seem to understand what evidence is. An argument from ignorance is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no problem in justifying any of my assertions,. Just tell me which point do you disagree with?


for example do you disagree with this statement?

I disagree that you have supported your BB paradox at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the thing, I disagree with the author of that source, so I will quote a specific point of disagreement, and explain why I disagree………..I will not say “ohhh it´s an atheist source therefore I will reject it by default”

It does not matter if you disagree. The fact is that he can and has done the math. You have not and cannot do the math. It is not because it is an atheist source that it is reliable. It is because it is an actual physicist that understands the topic that it is reliable. Religious views have nothing to do with it. In fact that was your error. You relied upon William Lane Craig. A Christian apologist (aka liar for Jesus) who has no scientific education at all. Of course WLC will get the science wrong.

If you change the values, in most cases you will not have atoms, molecules, stars planets, chemistry etc……….for example if gravity would have been a little bit stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole.

Citation needed. If you read the article and understood it you would have seen that creationists took Hawkings work out of context. Again, Carroll can do the math. He has a different answer than your sources do.

The claim is that without have atoms, molecules, stars planets, and /or chemistry…..you cant have life of any kind, no humans, no dogs, no bacteria, no aliens etc………….. While it is true that nobody has ever seen an alien, I think is fair to assume that it is made out of atoms.

So while I not claiming to be 100% sure; it seems reasonable to conclude that you can’t have life (let alone intelligent life) without atoms, life cant evolve if a black hole is all there is, life cant evolve if you don’t have a star, or some other source of energy, life cant evolve in a universe without chemistry

Would you say that it is reasonable possible to have life of any kind without atoms, molecules, stars planets, chemistry etc?

---

See the difference? I am not simply claiming that the source is wrong, I am not repeating like a parrot “there is no evidence” “the evidence is flawed”……. But rather I identified a point that I disagree with and I explain why I disagree , I am expecting you to do the same with my comments and sources…….. look for a point of disagreement in any of my comments, (or sources) quote it and explain why you disagree.

Yes, you are claiming a source is wrong without any justification. In fact you pretend to accept the science to get your values, but the problem is that a correct application of the sciences tells us that you are wrong.

 

[leroy]

I disagree that you have supported your BB paradox at all.

Well then point out the mistakes , flaws of fallacies on any of my comments (or sources) on the BB paradox…………..

 

[rational experiences]

Before science was human expressed. Chosen by living humans to express beliefs. Invention. To control the built designed invention. Human controlled. A human quotes.i am in male presence scientist a creator.

His machine works. Says my thoughts correct.

Science being correct.

Science is not correct anywhere else.
Natural formed by huge variable masses are self present.

When ego in human thinking says when it is not present. That is inventive science reasoning. How to release it by his own terms. Converting to not own form. Relative to his own status. Inventor.

How large the human ego has become.

Most reactive themes do not include the natural presence planet owning it's own naturally formed gases.

What was explained as the entity O body stone that owned it's own atmosphere. O God said science self body presence creator O body atmosphere.

Not human owned in thinking.

We live separately surviving each moment as multi self owned separated self forms.

Natural advice first by observation.

Then motivated want science. To force separation upon what historic creation held formed.

Motivated advice.

Natural forms already existed separated.

Possession. To think want to copy.

What is thought upon firstly does not exist.

Science status.

Then you became self possessed by science. Using mathematics to force separation artificially.

You look back at what human science did before. Yet natural was the body that changed. Humans imposing science status changed it.

What you do not include in science research. Conditions of change that humans forced upon the natural body.

It did change naturally. Yet natural was not why it changed. Science forced it to change. The warning to self a destroyer mentality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then point out the mistakes , flaws of fallacies on any of my comments (or sources) on the BB paradox…………..

Handwaving is a mistake. That is all that you had. No evidence, no numbers, nothing.

 

[rational experiences]

Handwaving is a mistake. That is all that you had. No evidence, no numbers, nothing.

Science.

Thesis.

Pretends.

Begins new thesis completely ignoring current earth body releasing for radiation. Activated by pyramid science once again about 2000 years ago.

Theory just thought upon for new theory beginnings in space. Was not inclusive natural earth current conditions.

Life was sacrificed had not yet healed. DNA still defective.

Told self a promise. Never do nuclear earth mass converting.

Lied to self. Did it again.

Info. Life sacrificed from past increased.

Ebola effect proof.

Science psyche owner to remove in irradiation effect God mass.

Irradiated space X mass now his scientific psyche wisdom . AI heaven transmitters only. False conscious radiating space versus science history.

God mass once existed now gone by particle transference

Consciousness life. Belief mind. Conditions only expressed whilst living inside of an atmosphere.

False mind beliefs. Inherited mind due to past human caused. Science only conditions.