Futile Crush
Member
I'm new to the forums, so forgive me for being ignorant of any conventions or such-like. I should really get a signature.
Anyway, hi! Ooh, a rainbow smiley. :rainbow1:
Oh, right.
The fine-tuning argument is one that bothers me. A lot of them bother me, actually, don't even get me started on Pascal's wager, but I'd like to open my first discussion on the fine-tuning argument.
It's a variant of the teleological argument - argument from design, only slightly more modern. The teleological argument was most famously put forward by William Paley in century number 19 - I don't know if that was the earliest example, it's just the first that I know of - and argues, using the analogy of a watch, that if someone exhibits signs of design (it rhymes!) then there has to be a designER (or watchmaker in this case.) This is typically labelled "God".
So that's the teleological argument. The fine-tuning argument takes it one step further, and makes up for it's lack of understanding in mathematics by inserting science in it's place. Fine-tuning argument proponents (FAPs?) examine the constants that have to be the same for the universe to have come into existence, such as the .... I don't know, I'm not a scientist, but if any of these constants were even slightly, minimally different, life on Earth (i.e. human beings) could not have arisen. The constants must have been fine-tuned like dials on a radio, and so there must be a tuner.
The argument, in short, is that the existence of human beings is so improbable that it couldn't possibly have happened by chance. And so, here comes God. Because God must've been the creative force behind the universe, right...?
Well, let's examine the argument a little more closely.
1) It is so improbable that life arose purely by chance that it could not have been.
2) Therefore there must have been intervention by a higher power.
3) This higher power was God.
Now here's the thing: improbability in this scenario is seen as another word for impossibility. In essence, FAPs say that because it's so unlikely life arose by chance, it didn't. But the thing is, unlikely things can, and DO happen all the time. Think about the chances of winning the lottery. Sure, it's unlikely, but if it happened to you then that wouldn't mean anything, apart from you're now stinking rich and I hate you - kidding! Let me use another example that's even more ordinary.
Take a regular fair coin, and flip it 1000 times, recording the sequence of heads and tails as you go (e.g. HTHHTHTTHTHHT). The sequence you end up with... there is a 1 in 2^1000 chance that you got that sequence. 2^1000 is a number over 300 digits long. But you don't question that sequence, of course you don't. Sure, it's probably more likely that a plane would crash into a sinking ship than you'd get that sequence, but there's nothing out of the ordinary there.
There are several other objections of mine to the fine-tuning argument, but I've already rambled on for far too long, and need to wrap up this post now.
I'd like to know what you guys think, about the fine-tuning argument, if it convinces you, and why, or if it doesn't convince you, and why again? I'll be fascinated to hear from y'all.
Have fun! (Rainbow smiley :rainbow1:
)
Anyway, hi! Ooh, a rainbow smiley. :rainbow1:
Oh, right.
The fine-tuning argument is one that bothers me. A lot of them bother me, actually, don't even get me started on Pascal's wager, but I'd like to open my first discussion on the fine-tuning argument.
It's a variant of the teleological argument - argument from design, only slightly more modern. The teleological argument was most famously put forward by William Paley in century number 19 - I don't know if that was the earliest example, it's just the first that I know of - and argues, using the analogy of a watch, that if someone exhibits signs of design (it rhymes!) then there has to be a designER (or watchmaker in this case.) This is typically labelled "God".
So that's the teleological argument. The fine-tuning argument takes it one step further, and makes up for it's lack of understanding in mathematics by inserting science in it's place. Fine-tuning argument proponents (FAPs?) examine the constants that have to be the same for the universe to have come into existence, such as the .... I don't know, I'm not a scientist, but if any of these constants were even slightly, minimally different, life on Earth (i.e. human beings) could not have arisen. The constants must have been fine-tuned like dials on a radio, and so there must be a tuner.
The argument, in short, is that the existence of human beings is so improbable that it couldn't possibly have happened by chance. And so, here comes God. Because God must've been the creative force behind the universe, right...?
Well, let's examine the argument a little more closely.
1) It is so improbable that life arose purely by chance that it could not have been.
2) Therefore there must have been intervention by a higher power.
3) This higher power was God.
Now here's the thing: improbability in this scenario is seen as another word for impossibility. In essence, FAPs say that because it's so unlikely life arose by chance, it didn't. But the thing is, unlikely things can, and DO happen all the time. Think about the chances of winning the lottery. Sure, it's unlikely, but if it happened to you then that wouldn't mean anything, apart from you're now stinking rich and I hate you - kidding! Let me use another example that's even more ordinary.
Take a regular fair coin, and flip it 1000 times, recording the sequence of heads and tails as you go (e.g. HTHHTHTTHTHHT). The sequence you end up with... there is a 1 in 2^1000 chance that you got that sequence. 2^1000 is a number over 300 digits long. But you don't question that sequence, of course you don't. Sure, it's probably more likely that a plane would crash into a sinking ship than you'd get that sequence, but there's nothing out of the ordinary there.
There are several other objections of mine to the fine-tuning argument, but I've already rambled on for far too long, and need to wrap up this post now.
I'd like to know what you guys think, about the fine-tuning argument, if it convinces you, and why, or if it doesn't convince you, and why again? I'll be fascinated to hear from y'all.
Have fun! (Rainbow smiley :rainbow1:
)
