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

[Heyo]

No i don't see where is this going..... A universe with 10 digit stars would be less likely than a 9 digit.... But i dont see your point.

You don't see the point because you didn't do the maths. There are 9,000,000,000 possible universes with a 10 digit number of stars but only 999,999,999 possible universes with a 9 digit number of stars.

Roger Penrose calculated that the ptobability of having a complex universe like ours by chance (considering just the entropy) is 10^10^129

The probability of a sinple universe say as big as our solar system 10^10^60

So in a multiverse observers that live in simple universes would be much more abundant than observers that live in complex universes.

Any disagreement?

Yes, I don't find a link to Roger Penrose's calculation in your list of sources. You are making an appeal to authority when you just claim that Penrose did these calculation (and that they are applicable to our problem).

 

[leroy]

It seems like you think this proves your point somehow, but I'm at a loss as to how it could. Your syllogism still has two premises that have to be assumed (#1 and #2).

And that syllogism is no more valid than this one:

1. A, B or C
2. Not B and not C
3. Therefore A

... so until the question of whether "C" is possible is resolved, the question of which syllogism is appropriate to use - and therefore which conclusion should be reached - is an open one.]

@Heyo point is that your accusation of begging the question and circular reasoning are not justified.

You may have other reasons to reject the argument, but first admit that you made a false accusation.

In any case, @leroy 's logical fallacies are more in his arguments that premise 1 and premise 2 are actually true.

Ok then quote the actual text where i made an argument and explain why is that a logical fallacy

Right in the OP, he presented it not only as an argument for God, but as "the best" argument for God.

Sure if there is a cosmic designer who caused the FT of the universe....... The existance of god would become more probable than if the FT was caused by some other mechanism (chance for example)

This is why if the argument is true, we can count it as evidence for god.

 

[leroy]

You don't see the point because you didn't do the maths. There are 9,000,000,000 possible universes with a 10 digit number of stars but only 999,999,999 possible universes with a 9 digit number of stars.

Not granted, but ok its a mental experiment……….so whats your point?

Yes, I don't find a link to Roger Penrose's calculation in your list of sources. You are making an appeal to authority when you just claim that Penrose did these calculation (and that they are applicable to our problem).

Source
Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality (New York: Knopf,Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). "

The book used to be available for free a few months ago.......but I cant find it any more


Short video of roger penrose explaining in more detail and afirming the 10^10^123
Log in to Facebook
/videos/710552082743299/

A deeper analysis by WLC
Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123).

I am making a very uncontroversial point, namely that if there is a multiverse, with each universe with different values, there would be more observers in simple universes (say 1 star and 1 planet) than in complex universes (like ours )………(assuming a random distribution of universes)….

 

[Heyo]

Not granted, but ok its a mental experiment……….so whats your point?

The point is that I can get to a higher chance of a big universe by assuming a linear distribution versus a random distribution. Both are unsupported assumptions. As I said, it is hard to argue probabilities with a sample size of one.

Source
Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality (New York: Knopf,Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). "

The book used to be available for free a few months ago.......but I cant find it any more

Found it. The road to reality | Roger Penrose | download

Short video of roger penrose explaining in more detail and afirming the 10^10^123
Log in to Facebook
/videos/710552082743299/

That link doesn't work. Is it this video you are referring to?

A deeper analysis by WLC
Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123).

I am making a very uncontroversial point, namely that if there is a multiverse, with each universe with different values, there would be more observers in simple universes (say 1 star and 1 planet) than in complex universes (like ours )………(assuming a random distribution of universes)….

I'm reading "The Road to Reality" to understand what 1:10^10¹²³ really stands for. I think we both (or three of us including WLC) don't understand it as Penrose's conclusion is the conformal, geometric, (cyclic) universe, which is an argument for a necessary, uncreated universe.
When it can lead to both conclusions, I think it isn't that powerful an argument.
But it may be an argument against a random universe, I'm not sure about that yet.


But apart from that, I think it is time (actually overdue) to revisit and reformulate the syllogism.

We had
--------------
0. The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.
---------------
Which we updated to:

0.a. We can't explain the constants of nature.
0.b. Only the current constants (or very close to these) could have led to life.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.
---------------------

I think we agree that 2. isn't supportable and WLC really doesn't support it in the sources. We should reformulate as:

2. The probabilities for physical necessity and chance are low.

which also leads to:

3. Therefore the probability for design is high.

D'accord?

 

[joelr]

Roger Penrose calculated that the ptobability of having a complex universe like ours by chance (considering just the entropy) is 10^10^129

The probability of a sinple universe say as big as our solar system 10^10^60

So in a multiverse observers that live in simple universes would be much more abundant than observers that live in complex universes.

Any disagreement?

No. A simple universe has less chances of creating the elements needed for living observers. Less chance of habitable planets.
Penroes's words seem to be mis-used on some intelligent design websites and WLC stubbornly doesn't seem to want Penrose to be agnostic on the subject but he is and he has answers based on his work that could allow for reasons why this universe looks fine tuned to WLC.

 

[leroy]

Like I said:

- you're arguing that God exists because - supposedly - God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

- for God to be any sort of explanation for the universe, you would need to establish that God exists.

IOW, you're assuming your conclusion is true in order to argue that your conclusion is true.

If you find something like pyramuds, art work, tools etc in an other planet would you say:

1 wow that is evidence for aliens

Or

2 would you say something stupid like : "nooo you cant claim aliens did it, untill you establish that aliens exist

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you find something like pyramuds, art work, tools etc in an other planet would you say:

1 wow that is evidence for aliens

Or

2 would you say something stupid like : "nooo you cant claim aliens did it, untill you establish that aliens exist

Interestingly, aliens are something that's much better supported than your God: the example of the Earth shows us that, under the right conditions, life can arise spontaneously on a planet and eventually produce intelligent beings, so we know that intelligent aliens are at least possible.

Your argument - if you had anything close to "pyramids and artwork on another planet" levels of evidence - would be more like arguing that the pyramids and whatnot are evidence of space leprechauns.

 

[leroy]

Sure... and I'll point out two more of your fallacies for good measure:


0 uses the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: you assume a particular consequence had to have been the predetermined endpoint or goal of the process.

1 uses argument from ignorance: you never bother - AFAICT - to establish that your list of possibilities is actually exhaustive.

2 is begging the question: you never bother - AFAICT - to establish that your preferred option is possible or that all the others are impossible.

From tjose comments it seems obvious tgat you dont know what a fallacy is.... But ill give yiu the denefit of the doubt

Support any of you assertions...... For example how did i beg the question

Begging the question means that the conclusion is already implicit in one of the premises...... So show me the premise, show me the conclusion and explain how is that begging the question

 

[leroy]

Interestingly, aliens are something that's much better supported than your God: the example of the Earth shows us that, under the right conditions, life can arise spontaneously on a planet and eventually produce intelligent beings, so we know that intelligent aliens are at least possible.

Your argument - if you had anything close to "pyramids and artwork on another planet" levels of evidence - would be more like arguing that the pyramids and whatnot are evidence of space leprechauns.

So the objection "first you have to stablished the ecistance of aliens" would be a stupid objection right?


Just for the record, are you afirming that the existance of a cosmic designer is impossible?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So the objection "first you have to stablished the ecistance of aliens" would be a stupid objection right?

Part of the issue here is that your analogy seriously over-represents your case.

You don't have "artwork on another planet;" you have:

- on the one hand, rectally-sourced probabilities for things beyond the knowledge of science.
- on the other hand, no consideration at all for the probability of your predetermined explanation.

But that aside, you do realize that we've had several cases of people trying to make "artwork on other planets"-type arguments, right?

- astronomers once thought they saw "canals" on Mars... at the time, taken as "clear evidence" of engineering works by an alien civilization.

- when pulsars were first detected, their signal was so regular and so unlike anything else that they were assumed to be alien beacons.

... so yeah: if credible people really did find something that appeared to be artwork and pyramids on another world, I'd consider "aliens" to be an interesting hypothesis that's worth investigating, nothing more.

Out of curiosity, though: why do you of all people think that "pyramids and artwork" would be evidence of aliens? I mean, you take God as a given and think that absolutely everything is designed. Are you acknowledging that inferring design is justified for some things and not for others?

I mean, if you've already jumped to the conclusion that God exists and designed everything, then when you see "pyramids and artwork" on some other planet you could just assume that God did it. Why would you infer aliens?

Just for the record, are you afirming that the existance of a cosmic designer is impossible?

I'm saying that we have no reason to believe that a cosmic designer would be possible.

And I'll also say that we have plenty of reason to conclude that the whole idea of a "cosmic designer" arose for reasons that have nothing to do with a cosmic designer being real.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From tjose comments it seems obvious tgat you dont know what a fallacy is.... But ill give yiu the denefit of the doubt

Support any of you assertions...... For example how did i beg the question

Begging the question means that the conclusion is already implicit in one of the premises...... So show me the premise, show me the conclusion and explain how is that begging the question

It's in premise 2: you arbitrarily argue that all conclusions but the one you already agreed with are false.

It might not have been begging the question if you had bothered to actually give a proper argument for premise 2, but you didn't do this.

Begging the question is also built into the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, which really underpins your whole argument, but especially premise 0.

 

[leroy]

Out of curiosity, though: why do you of all people think that "pyramids and artwork" would be evidence of aliens? I mean, you take God as a given and think that absolutely everything is designed. Are you acknowledging that inferring design is justified for some things and not for others?

I would infer design in pyramids because these things are finely tuned and you can’t explain this fine tuning with physical necessity nor chance………..based on what we know the laws that govern “rocks” don’t have any tendency towards forming bricks and then ordered them in a symmetrical and geometrical form (pyramids) and its very unlikely to have this pattern by chance.

Any disagreement at this point?

I mean, if you've already jumped to the conclusion that God exists and designed everything, then when you see "pyramids and artwork" on some other planet you could just assume that God did it. Why would you infer aliens?

I would consider all possible designers, aliens, humans, god etc. and then find the best explanation based on explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, plausibility…. The best explanation depends on the details of this hypothetical scenario.

I'm saying that we have no reason to believe that a cosmic designer would be possible.

Ok and lets say that I have no reason to believe that the existence of Aliens is possible……….do I have a burden proof? Do I have to support my assertion? Do I have to show that the existence of aliens is impossible (or very unlikely)?

 

[leroy]

It's in premise 2: you arbitrarily argue that all conclusions but the one you already agreed with are false.

It might not have been begging the question if you had bothered to actually give a proper argument for premise 2, but you didn't do this.

Maybe, but that is not begging the question, nor any other fallacy……….at most you could say that the premise is not being supported……………begging the question would be if for example if I define FT as “something made by a designer”……..I am not committing this fallacy so do you admit that your previous accusation was false?

Begging the question is also built into the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, which really underpins your whole argument, but especially premise 0.

suport your claim

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred.

when did I do something like that?

 

[leroy]

The point is that I can get to a higher chance of a big universe by assuming a linear distribution versus a random distribution. Both are unsupported assumptions. As I said, it is hard to argue probabilities with a sample size of one.

Sure, the Boltzmann brain paradox is only a problem if you assume a random distribution, where the more probable universes would be more abundant…..universes with low entropy are less probable than universes with high entropy, therefore universes with high entropy should be more abundant.

Found it. The road to reality | Roger Penrose | download

The relevant point is that obervers that live in universes with relatively high entropy would be more abundant than observers that live in a universe with low entropy (like ours)………do you grant this point?


--------------

0. The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.
---------------
Which we updated to:

0.a. We can't explain the constants of nature.
0.b. Only the current constants (or very close to these) could have led to life.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design

I think we agree that 2. isn't supportable and WLC really doesn't support it in the sources. We should reformulate as:

2. The probabilities for physical necessity and chance are low.

which also leads to:

3. Therefore the probability for design is high.

D'accord?

.[/QUOTE]

sure I accept that version of the argument.

...........

The fine tuning of the universe is analogous to a finding a planet where the clouds form letters and words and forming meaningful sentences in English.

You could say “chance” but it is very unlikely to have that pattern

You could say necessity “maybe the laws that govern those clouds create make this pattern unavoidable………which would be hard to believe

You could say design (which would be the most obvious explanation)

 

[leroy]

Yes, I did use Sean Caroll's term way back. But in the post you were responding to I said a universe that came by "happenstance". The point was there may be no tuning, overtunning or undertuning so I was trying to get away from that term.




No you said Sean Caroll has 5 arguments to the FT argument. #161

I picked his last argument which is a theism vs naturalism comparison where he stated there is no one specific thing but a cumulative effect of making observations.

Theism expectations naturalism expectations

-universe expected to show fine tuning for life - universe shows far over-tuning, entropy far lower than needed
- particles favor life creation -particle zoo is a mess
-life plays special role in universe - life is insignificant
-unified religion, God easy to find -poor evidence
-unified universal religious beliefs - different beliefs in cultures
- religious text last long time - - text change to adapt to social conditions
-moral teachings to be consistent -morals change with cultures
-sacred text would teach good science - sacred text teaches only science of ancient times
-perfect universe -kind of a messy design






No, this is why I'm trying to avoid this term. I'm not sure why he says "over-tuned" because it could also be "under-tuned" depending on how he's looking at it and I don't know? But as an observation it doesn't support the idea the universe was designed for life.


The early universe wasn't a chair. The early universe was 2 types of atoms, some basic particles and governed by the rules of quantum mechanics which say the universe is indeterministic and uncertainty is built into the the structure of reality.
A better analogy would be saying step #1 in building a chair is having a big bang.

You do not know if the energy and quantum fields are going to produce either a chair builder or a chair.
You can go to special pleading - "my God knew in advance" but this special pleading doesn't make the observation rule in favor of theism.







Maybe if I used the term "over-tuning" but the whole point of not using it last post was because we don't know if anything was "tuned"?
No one is making any claim either? Not the way you are strawmanning it.

The claim is not a definitive statement about no Gods or no design. It's simply that it doesn't look designed.



I don't know everything Sean is thinking. That was his first of nine points regarding observations. My take on this point is things were far to simple and ordered to expect that this was a good way to create life. The fact that life happened is a post facto argument that isn't changing the observation.




I don't think that's the same argument? But his point was made while looking at an image of galaxy clusters with billions and billions of stars and thinking how silly it is to say "all this was created this way so we could be here".
To that point I think he's correct.
Especially considering how short of a time we have been here and how easily a pandemic or asteroid could wipe up right out and the universe will keep going just fine. In that perspective the idea that the universe was created for humans is absurd.



I've covered both already. The only burden of proof I care about is trying to discover what's true. I have no burden to those who are uninterested in finding truth. To strawman my position seems like an attempt to avoid some truth.
I never said any of these observations means "no design". I said they do not make definitive statements or definitive premise and I said dieism concepts can never be known true or untrue 100%.
But we can make observations and we can make predictions based on theism vs naturalism. These observations do not favor theism without some weird special pleading.
You really expect Sean Caroll to say "well the early universe didn't favor life at all because carbon didn't exist yet (or pick a reason), but God knew exactly what he was doing"?

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

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

If yes, then lets stick to this particular objection

 

[Heyo]

The relevant point is that obervers that live in universes with relatively high entropy would be more abundant than observers that live in a universe with low entropy (like ours)………do you grant this point?

Yes, but I think we mean radically different things with "entropy".
Entropy, in a classical definition, is a measure of energy that can be used to do work. The more work you can do, the lower the entropy.
Entropy rises with work being done, so it can never get lower, only remain constant or rise.
Thus in an older universe or a bigger universe, there will be more observers than in a young or small universe. This is of course only true to a point; an old universe with a very high entropy doesn't have any energy left to sustain observers.

--------------

sure I accept that version of the argument.

OK, then let's do some maths.
As I already hinted at, WLC scrutinizes necessity and chance. But we don't want to commit the special pleading fallacy and exempt design from a closer look, do we?
Fortunately we don't have to rely on conjecture as we have real life data.
Michael Behe proposed design as an explanation for the coagulation cascade, the bacterial flagellum and the cilium motion. All three turned out to be not irreducible complex and the design hypothesis thus debunked.
(I concentrate on three as it is enough for the inequality I'm going to construct. I can cite more examples if you have objections to these or if you find a counter example that increases the numerator.)
If we generously assume that the setting of the natural constants would be designed, we'd have one in four cases of proposed design turn out to be true.
We can thus say that the probability of design being the right answer is (less than) 1/4.
Assuming that the conclusion is correct that the probability of design is higher than the probabilities for either necessity or chance (p(des) > p(nec) > p(cha)) we get that p(des) + p(nec) + p(cha) < 1.
But since the sum of probabilities of all possible outcomes has to be 1, we find a contradiction. I.e. we either miscalculated the probabilities or
premise 1 is a false dichotomy (or in our case trichotomy).

To mend the later we'd have to formulate
Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, design or something other.
(And the probability for something other would be > 1/4.)

Which would be the last premise that didn't hold water.


Let's recall:
We had an unnamed premise in premise 0, a false trichotomy in premise 1, a non sequitur, a special pleading and an appeal to authority in premise 2.

That's a bingo!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe, but that is not begging the question, nor any other fallacy……….at most you could say that the premise is not being supported……………begging the question would be if for example if I define FT as “something made by a designer”……..I am not committing this fallacy so do you admit that your previous accusation was false?

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

suport your claim


when did I do something like that?

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

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

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

 

[leroy]

Yes, but I think we mean radically different things with "entropy".
Entropy, in a classical definition, is a measure of energy that can be used to do work. The more work you can do, the lower the entropy.
Entropy rises with work being done, so it can never get lower, only remain constant or rise.
Thus in an older universe or a bigger universe, there will be more observers than in a young or small universe. This is of course only true to a point; an old universe with a very high entropy doesn't have any energy left to sustain observers.]

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



.....

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

.....
Evolution by natural selection if true, would be an example of physical necesity...... Natural mechanisnslike natural selection "try" to create high quality stuff and many times they are also complex (Finely tuned organs)
But this us related to biology, nothing to do with the ft of the Cosmos

 

[rational experiences]

God in science. Mass. Energy that began historic in cosmos as higher form that converted by first science inferred law. Thermal or heated blasting conversion.

Said for science only as science.

Science does not speak on behalf natural. O the circle a science applied measure

O earth a spatial held round energy mass stone.

Heavens. Gas. Spirit in space. Not round. Held to earth by vacuum and pressure.

Not a circle.

O planet mass energy. Circle owner.

The measure humans I. Science inferred.

No man is God. O planet God.

No man is a planet O.
O mass.
O energy.
O science measure.

Machine use designed built.
God O natural form was not built.

O sink holes. Removal of the form. Mass. Presence origin is sin. Mass O burning satanic. Cosmos history. God in its original form O satanic.

O removal mass. To copy removal original sin. Natural held fused mass O.

O sink hole.

Theme. To think. O God mass removed. Included thinking whilst Stone O origin of God still exists.

All thoughts thought a contradiction in science.

O mass removal sink hole science thesis.

How to.

Origin sun attack first made sink holes. O God planet to sink hole o.

Sun thesis aware human science.

Secondary attack removed mountain mass at tip.

Male science self quotes. Highest coldest heaven gases stopped removal of original sin.

Gases heavenly flow into hole. Stop God mass removal. Thesis.

Natural spirit stopped removal sin.

Natural advice.

Heavens stopped it.

Heat up heavenly gases. God in ancient cold tunnels heavenly spirit past stopped now puts radiating law volcanic mass back into mass.

Stone returns by volcano. First law science thesis. Underground collapsing sink holes form as underground fusion releases cold mass.

Once sealed by heavenly cooling.

Why ancient machine parts are found inside earth cooled mass.

Hell arises beneath our feet when science wants healed God terms for a machine copying reaction. A thesis. Mass to go back in times to its origin law in space.

Already taught as relative why human life got sacrificed by brother scientist.

Natural always attacks us in and from its highest place. Science brother preaches God did it. Yet he changes natural history of fusion. False preaching. False prophet human. Science. Maths. Machine caused/effects.

 

[leroy]

No. A simple universe has less chances of creating the elements needed for living observers. Less chance of habitable planets.
Penroes's words seem to be mis-used on some intelligent design websites and WLC stubbornly doesn't seem to want Penrose to be agnostic on the subject but he is and he has answers based on his work that could allow for reasons why this universe looks fine tuned to WLC.

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

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

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

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