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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t, know but it is not relevant ether, whether if gravity could have been different or not doesn’t affect the FT argument.

At this point, it's not clear at all what you think the fine tuning argument is.

if you disagree feel free to formulate the argument. For the sake of this thread I am willing to grand any number of possibilities that you might find convenient…..please formulate your argument………ohhh wait you are an atheist, you don’t formulate arguments

There are a few different versions:

1. the occurrence of life in the universe is sensitive to the values of certain physical constants.

2. the occurrence of life in the universe is sensitive to the values of certain physical constants, and the values that these constants have are improbable.

3. the occurrence of life in the universe is sensitive to the values of certain physical constants, and the values that these constants have are so improbable that they could not have happened by random chance.

4. the occurrence of life in the universe is sensitive to the values of certain physical constants, and the values that these constants have are so improbable that nothing but God can explain them.

So which one did you have in mind?

So if someone tells you that if you role the dice 1,000 times in a row and you get “6” every time you will win a price … if you happen to win the price wouldn’t you conclude that maybe the whole thing was designed for you to win?

If there is a magnet that makes “6” the only possible result , you would still conclude that somebody designed the rules (or the dice) such that you would win….at the very list you would consider that possibility.

You don't get the analogy. That's okay - it wasn't necessary.

If you what to affirm that the FT was an accident, feel free to do so or that an accident is a better explanation than design…. Please elaborate your argument……ohhh wait internet atheist don’t elaborate arguments.

Most of us don't put a lot of effort into discussions with theists who are behaving like trolls. Try approaching these discussions with a better attitude and see what happens.

Sure the argument presupposes that the existence of a designer (GOD) is at least possible…….if you what to affirm that its impossible, feel free to provide your arguments……..ooohhh wait you are an atheist you don’t provide arguments.

From your posts so far, I know that the God you describe - both immaterial and having real effects on the physical universe - is contradictory and is therefore impossible.

For other versions of God, it depends on what we mean by "God." Until we define the term, the question of whether God is possible or not is something unresolved.

... but to establish that God is the most likely cause for the universe, you would have to not only establish that God is possible, but also establish the likelihood of God's existence. Good luck with that.

 

[leroy]

in other words, apart from preaching to the choir, I wonder why it is still used.

ciao

- viole

Could it be possible that maybe (just maybe) you are the one who doesn’t undertand the argument, could it be that you are missing something?.......I mean if brilliant scientists go as far as proposing a multiverse to explain the FT, then maybe (just maybe) you are missing something, otherwise why would they propose something as extravagant as a multiverse?

 

[leroy]

Thanks for elaborating. I'm not sure I follow the reasoning but I'll have a look into when I get a chance.

Well from my um, ignorant perspective, the idea that they maybe couldn't be any other way would force them to be what they are.

I'm not sure we can rule out the possibility that the parameters have to be what they are.

Anyway, I don't really know enough about this stuff to have a solid opinion. I think that premise 2 is pretty shaky though. Of course, I am an atheist and maybe I'm biased there. Conversely, I happen to have some time for William Lane Craig. He seems like an honest and intelligent chap to me.

Yes for more detail you can go to William lane creig (sources in the OP) he explains the argument in detail and its easy to understand.

It doesn’t matter if the parameters have to be the way they are or not, in either case the FT argument would still apply.

 

[leroy]

At this point, it's not clear at all what you think the fine tuning argument is.


There are a few different versions:

1. the occurrence of life in the universe is sensitive to the values of certain physical constants.

2. the occurrence of life in the universe is sensitive to the values of certain physical constants, and the values that these constants have are improbable.

3. the occurrence of life in the universe is sensitive to the values of certain physical constants, and the values that these constants have are so improbable that they could not have happened by random chance.

4. the occurrence of life in the universe is sensitive to the values of certain physical constants, and the values that these constants have are so improbable that nothing but God can explain them.

Option 1 represents the concept of FT I would change some minor details but it is ok for the sake of this thread



Option 4 would represent my conclution

So my request #1 is, please formulate an argument that explains the FT without a designer, it doesn’t matter if there are many possible values or not

You don't get the analogy. That's okay - it wasn't necessary.

An internet atheist ignoring the argument, how surprising.

The point that I made is that it doesn’t matter if the dice has 1 number or 20………….if you are told that if you get “6” 1000 times in a row you would win a price, if you win the price you would conclude that everything was designed for you to win. Do you grant this point?.....the point is that it doesn’t matter how many possible values for say gravity are possible, the argument would still apply

Most of us don't put a lot of effort into discussions with theists who are behaving like trolls. Try approaching these discussions with a better attitude and see what happens.

I am just asking to justify your assertions, why cant you?..........If you are affirming that the FT is a product of chance then justify your assertion…. If you are not making that assertion then we both agree why is that trolling?

From your posts so far, I know that the God you describe - both immaterial and having real effects on the physical universe - is contradictory and is therefore impossible.

Yes that is an accurate representation of my concept of God, If you what to affirm that it is impossible then formulate your argument

 

[viole]

Could it be possible that maybe (just maybe) you are the one who doesn’t undertand the argument, could it be that you are missing something?.......I mean if brilliant scientists go as far as proposing a multiverse to explain the FT, then maybe (just maybe) you are missing something, otherwise why would they propose something as extravagant as a multiverse?

Of course it is possible. But I would like you to point to me what I am missing. And I am not sure if scientists are proposing the multiverse because of the FTA, or because the multiverse is a consequence of theories like string theory, or inflation.

What do you think is the case, assuming you are not missing their point, instead, given your proven lack of knowledge of the basic of science?

But even assuming they made up the multiverse to defeat fine tuning, as if that deserved to be addressed, what is so extravagant about that?

Is that more extravagant than a God who created the Universe, chose a tribe in the middle east as His fav people, spawned into a great ape to sort of die for three days, so that the sin of a clueless person, whose wife comes from one of his ribs, has been seduced by a talking snake?

is that really less extravagant than an inference that comes from some scientific mathematical theories?

LOL

ciao

- viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

A hole that is perfectly round would indicate design.

How about the hexagonal cloud that rotates on the pole of Saturn? Designed?

Perfect circles (or near enough approximations to them) also occur in nature, without a single hand to be evidenced in play. The orbits of some heavenly bodies, for example - while perfect circle is less likely, ellipses are to be found all over the place. The base shape of developed planets or stars is spherical - circular all the way around - not "perfect" obviously, but many of the imperfections on the surface are extremely miniscule given the overall size of the objects we're talking about. How about ripples across a pond's surface when a drop strikes? The curvature of a rainbow is (in definition anyway) a perfect arc of a circle. I highly doubt you would be so bold as to make make the claim that these things are "designed."

 

[paarsurrey]

How about the hexagonal cloud that rotates on the pole of Saturn? Designed?

Perfect circles (or near enough approximations to them) also occur in nature, without a single hand to be evidenced in play. The orbits of some heavenly bodies, for example - while perfect circle is less likely, ellipses are to be found all over the place. The base shape of developed planets or stars is spherical - circular all the way around - not "perfect" obviously, but many of the imperfections on the surface are extremely miniscule given the overall size of the objects we're talking about. How about ripples across a pond's surface when a drop strikes? The curvature of a rainbow is (in definition anyway) a perfect arc of a circle. I highly doubt you would be so bold as to make make the claim that these things are "designed."

Everything in natural space that is round or to tends to be round is speaking loudly of the One-Creator, who has set it in motion, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Yes, but one does not evolve out of a clade. If both New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys are "monkeys" then cladistically we are too. The split between New World and Old World occurred before the split between Old World Monkeys and Apes occurred. Our ancestors were also Old World Monkeys.

That's not a picture of a New World monkey. It looks more like a gibbon.....

 

[Valjean]

So if gravity would have been stronger, the universe would have collapsed son after inflation , gravity has to be FT such that many “small” cluster of matter form all around the available space……if gravity would have been stronger all the clusters would have join to each other making a single big cluster that would later evolve in to a black hole.

Inflation simply adds a couple of new FT problems, inflation had to start and finish at a very specific point, otherwise life would have been impossible ´+ the fact that the initial entropy would have to be much smaller

And how many millions of these unproductive dice-rolls have occurred, with no-one to report them?
We have a sample size of One, yet we're extrapolating generalized conclusions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything in natural space that is round or to tends to be round is speaking loudly of the One-Creator, who has set it in motion, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

Nope, not at all. For large objects it only speaks loudly of gravity. And if gravity is your God you are in essence claiming that God sucks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not a picture of a New World monkey. It looks more like a gibbon.....

One of the organisms is a gibbon. It is also a monkey

 

[leroy]

Of course it is possible. But I would like you to point to me what I am missing. And I am not sure if scientists are proposing the multiverse because of the FTA, or because the multiverse is a consequence of theories like string theory, or inflation.

What do you think is the case, assuming you are not missing their point, instead, given your proven lack of knowledge of the basic of science?

But even assuming they made up the multiverse to defeat fine tuning, as if that deserved to be addressed, what is so extravagant about that?

Is that more extravagant than a God who created the Universe, chose a tribe in the middle east as His fav people, spawned into a great ape to sort of die for three days, so that the sin of a clueless person, whose wife comes from one of his ribs, has been seduced by a talking snake?

is that really less extravagant than an inference that comes from some scientific mathematical theories?

LOL

ciao

- viole

The thing is that if the FT problem can be explained by "it's just a tautology".....

The why are scientist proposing more complex and sofisticated explanations? Like multiverses, cosmic evolution, and so on.

Ether
1 scientists are stupid and unable to discover the simple explanation that you seem to propose

2 you are missing something.


Obviously I cant tell exactly what you are missing, because you havent elaborate an explanation......

 

[leroy]

How about the hexagonal cloud that rotates on the pole of Saturn? Designed?

Perfect circles (or near enough approximations to them) also occur in nature, without a single hand to be evidenced in play. The orbits of some heavenly bodies, for example - while perfect circle is less likely, ellipses are to be found all over the place. The base shape of developed planets or stars is spherical - circular all the way around - not "perfect" obviously, but many of the imperfections on the surface are extremely miniscule given the overall size of the objects we're talking about. How about ripples across a pond's surface when a drop strikes? The curvature of a rainbow is (in definition anyway) a perfect arc of a circle. I highly doubt you would be so bold as to make make the claim that these things are "designed."

You have to look at each case independently.


A perfect circular hole in the sand for example would indicate design, because the things that cause holes (things like erosion, wind, water etc) dont have any predisposition nor tendency to form perfect circles.

There are many possible combinations, and only 1 or few would produce a perfect circle

 

[leroy]

And how many millions of these unproductive dice-rolls have occurred, with no-one to report them.

Irrelevant, feel free to pick any value that you want...... The ft argument would still work.

Are you aserting that some sort of multiverse with "many" dice rolls is a better explanation for the FT than inteligent design?


If yes, provide a justification

If no, then I apologize for misunderstanding your point,

[We have a sample size of One, yet we're extrapolating generalized conclusions?

Ok and why is thst a problem?...... Please elaborate an argument....

In fact i can help you with it

Premise 1 : we have a sample size of one

Premise 2. ???????

Therefore : the FT argument fails

So what would be premise 2 such that the conclusion would follow?....... Feel free to change the words such that your position is well represented

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok and why is thst a problem?...... Please elaborate an argument....

In fact i can help you with it

Premise 1 : we have a sample size of one

Premise 2. ???????

Therefore : the FT argument fails

So what would be premise 2 such that the conclusion would follow?....... Feel free to change the words such that your position is well represented

You'd need a sample size of at least 3 to even calculate a standard deviation.

IOW, inferring what universes in general are like from our universe alone is so wrong-headed that it's beyond our ability to measure just how wrong-headed it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have to look at each case independently.


A perfect circular hole in the sand for example would indicate design, because the things that cause holes (things like erosion, wind, water etc) dont have any predisposition nor tendency to form perfect circles.

There are many possible combinations, and only 1 or few would produce a perfect circle

So an irregular hole would indicate a lack of design? That seems to be the other part that you're not acknowledging.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

For starters, let's get something clear here. The very expression "fine tuning" can imply agency, which is exactly what this argument is attempting to prove / support. So let's remember that this statement can not be loaded up with that assumption, or else it's already guilty of an assumed conclusion.

Rather, what is meant with "finetuning" is the mere specific distribution of values that make the universe work and exist the way it does.

So to avoid any confusion, let's rephrase that premise as such:

"The specific values of constants in the universe are either due to physical necessity, chance or design"

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

lol?

Evidence of this claim?
How have you determined that it's not due to physical necessity or chance?

You can trump the argument by:

1 Showing that any of the premises is likely to be wrong

2 showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

3 showing that the universe is not FT (stawman definitions of FT are not allowed)

4 showing that there is a better explanation for FT

5 show that there is a logical fallacy

6. Point out unsupported premises: premise 2. At this point, that's just a bare assertion.

Also a potential assumed conclusion, unless you agree to my rephrasing of premise 1

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because a different configuration would make the existence of say atoms impossible. The only “assumption” that I am making is that life (of any kind) can exist without atoms. … seems a reasonable assumption to me.

Do you find it surprising that we exist in a universe in which we actually can exist?

I also find it kind of strange how apologists find this fine-tuning argument even important. It seems to me that the values aren't the question in and of themselves. The actual question is how did the universe originate. A theory thereof would, I assume, include an explanation for why those values are as they are. And if such a thing as a multiverse exists, which is actually rather plausible, then potentially an infinite amount of universes could exist, potentially all with their own set of values. In that case, it's not surprising that we happen to evolve in the universe in which we actually can evolve, nore does it even require any special explanation...

Just like in poker. Sometimes, you're going to be a dealed a royal flush. Given enough hands, it's going to be inevitable. There's no special explanation required beyond the more probability of the matter.

That could very well be the case of the universe.

But your OP argument dismisses that out of hand in P2, for some (not so) mysterious reasons.

Irrelevant

That's not irrelevant at all. As given enough trials, it makes any particular configuration inevitable.

[qutoe]
, if there where potentially infinite (or just a big number) of other creations you would be more likely to be a Boltzmann brain under the illusion of being a human than a real human … given that you are presumably not a bolzman brain your “many creations” claim collapses-[/QUOTE]

That makes no sense at all to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Statistically speaking you are much more likely to in a simple universe than in a complex universe with many stars, planets galaxies etc.

STATISTICALLY speaking ha?

So, how did you conclude this statistic, from this set of ONE that you have to compare to?

As an analogy would if you observe yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row, then you probably are just imagining stuff.

How is that in any way analogous?

And of course being a bolzman brain (BB) is statistically speaking even more probable, so if you think that all the observations of a complex and FT universe are just a product of chance, then you most conclude that you are a BB hallucinating all that stuff.

That makes no sense at all.

So you ether conclude that you are a BB or drop any chance hypothesis that you might have.

Or, you could not make ridiculous arguments to conclude a rather stupid false dichotomy.

Because we are talking about multiple independent values, why would they all conspire to fall in to the life permitting range?

"Why do you hit your wife?"

Loaded question, much?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if gravity would have been stronger, the universe would have collapsed son after inflation , gravity has to be FT such that many “small” cluster of matter form all around the available space……if gravity would have been stronger all the clusters would have join to each other making a single big cluster that would later evolve in to a black hole.

Inflation simply adds a couple of new FT problems, inflation had to start and finish at a very specific point, otherwise life would have been impossible ´+ the fact that the initial entropy would have to be much smaller

What this post is telling me, is that you'll point at any unknown in advanced physics in context of the origins of the universe, declare it fine tuned and conclude that god must have dun it.


Sounds like a giant argument from ignorance.