Fine-Tuning Argument

MisterEpicurus

Maybe I'm missing something but I felt obliged to post this.

The fine-tuning argument posits that this Universe was designed for intelligent life to evolve after the values of constants were adjusted.

When you tell a believer that abiogenesis i.e. that life spontaneously formed through natural processes, they will be quick to dismiss it and conclude that God sewed the seeds at the start of evolution.

Concluding, how it the Universe fine-tuned if God had to intervene later on in his design to sew those seeds? If he didn't sew the seeds, then it was abiogenesis.

So it's either the Universe was unfinely finely-tuned, or that it was natural. Either way, the theist must appear embarrassed.

Anyone ever wonder about this inconsistency by the theist?

The Quadratic Equation

The nothing caused something claim again ? Oh dear.

Genghiz Cohen

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The nothing caused something claim again ? Oh dear.

Strange how Atheists are as sick of hearing it as Theists...

Pace2008

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but I felt obliged to post this.

The fine-tuning argument posits that this Universe was designed for intelligent life to evolve after the values of constants were adjusted.

When you tell a believer that abiogenesis i.e. that life spontaneously formed through natural processes, they will be quick to dismiss it and conclude that God sewed the seeds at the start of evolution.

I know this only applies to one sect of Christianity (albeit the world's largest), but I don't think Catholics necessarily reject the idea of abiogenesis. If I recall correctly, the Church has tentatively approved the notion of the Big Bang, and has not dismissed the hypothesis that self-replicating organic matter arose from inorganic material. Basically, they think that God set the ball rolling with the Big Bang, knowing it would lead to the inception of life and ultimately to the development of man through evolution. The ultimate Gap Theory, if you will.

I'm open to correction on this.

The Quadratic Equation

Pace2008 wrote: »

If I recall correctly, the Church has tentatively approved the notion of the Big Bang

Actually a Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics, MonsignorGeorges Lemaître was the one who proposed in 1927 at MIT what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

aidan24326

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The nothing caused something claim again ? Oh dear.

Saying everything came from nothing and saying it came from god are effectively the same thing. Both concepts are equally undefined. Then again the typical atheist view isn't to say 'nothing caused something', it's to say 'I simply don't know'. And maybe we'll never know. Theists, on the other hand, claim to have the answers already. And it's always the same useless answer, that 'god did it'.

amacachi

If God did set things in motion he did an excellent job to make it seem random. He's also pretty cruel to do so knowing how many millions (more?) species would simply die out.

JimiTime

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but I felt obliged to post this.

The fine-tuning argument posits that this Universe was designed for intelligent life to evolve after the values of constants were adjusted.

When you tell a believer that abiogenesis i.e. that life spontaneously formed through natural processes, they will be quick to dismiss it and conclude that God sewed the seeds at the start of evolution.

Concluding, how it the Universe fine-tuned if God had to intervene later on in his design to sew those seeds? If he didn't sew the seeds, then it was abiogenesis.

So it's either the Universe was unfinely finely-tuned, or that it was natural. Either way, the theist must appear embarrassed.

Anyone ever wonder about this inconsistency by the theist?

A simple explanation would be that the fine tuning applies to our planet 'supporting' life. Siimples.

MisterEpicurus

JimiTime wrote: »

A simple explanation would be that the fine tuning applies to our planet 'supporting' life. Siimples.

There are many theists whom I've heard debate that say abiogenesis did not occur, and it was miraculous intervention that ensued. It just appears to be a bizarre intervention to create simple RNA-Based reproducing slime.

JimiTime

aidan24326 wrote: »

Saying everything came from nothing and saying it came from God are effectively the same thing.

Only if your end goal is simply the answer, and only if you are talking in the context of scientific modelling. Its what comes after each hypothesis, in terms of where you take the question, that reveals the value.

JimiTime

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

There are many theists whom I've heard debate that say abiogenesis did not occur, and it was miraculous intervention that ensued. It just appears to be a bizarre intervention to create simple RNA-Based reproducing slime.

Well, I'm a Christian, who presently has no religious objection to evolution (Though from what I have seen, I think its a nonsense on its own merits wrapped in sophistry and intellectualism.) So I don't simply accept consensus that we all came from pond slime in the first place. BUT,to return to your OP, just because you think such a thing seems 'bizarre', does not reveal any inconsistency or hole in the argument for a finely tuned environment for the 'supporting' of life on this planet.

MisterEpicurus

JimiTime wrote: »

BUT,to return to your OP, just because you think such a thing seems 'bizarre', does not reveal any inconsistency or hole in the argument for a finely tuned environment for the 'supporting' of life on this planet.

I never said it did. It was just a passing comment.

You find the reproducing slime bizarre and that doesn't reveal and inconsistency in evolution either.

On face value, given that nature has no capability to know what's suffering or not, it seems much more probable given the circumstances of 3.5 billion years of evolution, that it was nature and not design.

JimiTime

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I never said it did. It was just a passing comment.

Have I misunderstood your quote below then?

So it's either the Universe was unfinely finely-tuned, or that it was natural. Either way, the theist must appear embarrassed.

Anyone ever wonder about this inconsistency by the theist?

Sonics2k

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, I'm a Christian, who presently has no religious objection to evolution (Though from what I have seen, I think its a nonsense on its own merits wrapped in sophistry and intellectualism.) So I don't simply accept consensus that we all came from pond slime in the first place. BUT,to return to your OP, just because you think such a thing seems 'bizarre', does not reveal any inconsistency or hole in the argument for a finely tuned environment for the 'supporting' of life on this planet.

Funnily enough, Evolutionists find the idea of creationism to based entirely on fantasy and mythology.

See, unlike the various religions, Evolution has been proven to exist. The big issue with the Christian idea of Creationism is that there is no proof of it, only words in a book written by biased authors with no evidence to back it up, and it was force fed to the masses. The same problem occurs for all the other major religions, not just Christianity. Hence the major problem for you guys. Which creation theory is correct, there are so so many to choose from.

But Evolution, well that's the same world wide.

JimiTime

Sonics2k wrote: »

Funnily enough, Evolutionists find the idea of creationism to based entirely on fantasy and mythology.

See, unlike the various religions, Evolution has been proven to exist. The big issue with the Christian idea of Creationism is that there is no proof of it, only words in a book written by biased authors with no evidence to back it up, and it was force fed to the masses. The same problem occurs for all the other major religions, not just Christianity. Hence the major problem for you guys. Which creation theory is correct, there are so so many to choose from.

But Evolution, well that's the same world wide.

Creationism is different to believing that God created us. I'm not a creationist. As for your assertions regarding evolution, I wont derail the thread with that can of worms.

MisterEpicurus

JimiTime wrote: »

Have I misunderstood your quote below then?

So it's either the Universe was unfinely finely-tuned, or that it was natural. Either way, the theist must appear embarrassed.

Anyone ever wonder about this inconsistency by the theist?

Yes, the specific nature of the replicating entity was passing, but it does indeed appear to be inconsistent with the supposed nature of God being omnipotent and omni-benevolent and so forth. Are you a Young Earth Creationist out of curiosity?

JimiTime

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Yes, the specific nature of the replicating entity was passing, but it does indeed appear to be inconsistent with the supposed nature of God being omnipotent

This is different to your OP, or at least what I understood of your OP. Your OP seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of the fine tuning argument.

Are you a Young Earth Creationist out of curiosity?

No I'm not. Presently, I'd be an Old earth believer. Obviously as a Christian, I believe in creation, but don't go for what has become known as creationism.

roosh

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but I felt obliged to post this.

The fine-tuning argument posits that this Universe was designed for intelligent life to evolve after the values of constants were adjusted.

When you tell a believer that abiogenesis i.e. that life spontaneously formed through natural processes, they will be quick to dismiss it and conclude that God sewed the seeds at the start of evolution.

Concluding, how it the Universe fine-tuned if God had to intervene later on in his design to sew those seeds? If he didn't sew the seeds, then it was abiogenesis.

So it's either the Universe was unfinely finely-tuned, or that it was natural. Either way, the theist must appear embarrassed.

Anyone ever wonder about this inconsistency by the theist?

The fine tuning argument is a poor attempt to prove that God exists, because there is nothing to suggest that some other form of life wouldn't have developed had the "settings" been different. Carbon life forms may not have developed, but life not as we know it, or life as we are incapable of imagining, may well have developed.

JimiTime

roosh wrote: »

The fine tuning argument is a poor attempt to prove that God exists, because there is nothing to suggest that some other form of life wouldn't have developed had the "settings" been different. Carbon life forms may not have developed, but life not as we know it, or life as we are incapable of imagining, may well have developed.

I don't think it is an attempt to prove anything, but rather a gentle push towards a reasonable outlook I.E. we are the perfect distance from the sun, spinning at the right speed and angle as well as the multitude of other factors on earth itself, and the cosmos. So many countless variables, that just so happen to be right. It basically raises the question, 'How likely is it that this is a random accident'.

Introducing 'Carbon life forms may not have developed, but life not as we know it, or life as we are incapable of imagining, may well have developed.' is the poor attempt at poo pooing the fine tuning argument. It basically just dreams up a baseless 'maybe' scenario, while the fine tuning argument deals with what actually IS.

Sarky

Well, considering the number of other planets so far discovered in the ideal "Goldilocks zone" distance from a star, with makeup similar to this world, each factor having fairly generous upper and lower boundaries, I reckon the odds are pretty good. Certainly better than most theists would be entirely comfortable admitting.

roosh

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think it is an attempt to prove anything, but rather a gentle push towards a reasonable outlook I.E. we are the perfect distance from the sun, spinning at the right speed and angle as well as the multitude of other factors on earth itself, and the cosmos. So many countless variables, that just so happen to be right. It basically raises the question, 'How likely is it that this is a random accident'.

Introducing 'Carbon life forms may not have developed, but life not as we know it, or life as we are incapable of imagining, may well have developed.' is the poor attempt at poo pooing the fine tuning argument. It basically just dreams up a baseless 'maybe' scenario, while the fine tuning argument deals with what actually IS.

The fine tuning argument assumes that the conditions were actually "set" when there is no basis for that assumption. That life has developed as it has does not mean that the conditions were actually set.

JimiTime

roosh wrote: »

The fine tuning argument assumes that the conditions were actually "set" when there is no basis for that assumption.

Actually, it seemed like the cart is before the horse there. The fine tuning argument, rather than being the assumption, is actually an argument that looks to fatten out the hypothesis that something relying on so many variables is unlikely to be down to chance.

That life has developed as it has does not mean that the conditions were actually set.

Well, like I already said, it doesn't look to prove, but rather beg the question.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think it is an attempt to prove anything, but rather a gentle push towards a reasonable outlook I.E. we are the perfect distance from the sun, spinning at the right speed and angle as well as the multitude of other factors on earth itself, and the cosmos. So many countless variables, that just so happen to be right. It basically raises the question, 'How likely is it that this is a random accident'.

We are only the perfect distance, angle etc from the sun to produce us, but that doesn't mean that other lifeforms couldn't evolve if the distance, angle etc were slightly different.

This is the whole problem with the fine tuning argument, it starts off with the assumption that we are exactly the only lifeforms possible and that any other lifeforms must evolve exactly like us or not at all.

Its like saying that no other human your age could exist, as you needed your parents to meet at the specific time they met, and your grandparents each had to meet at the specific time they met, and so and so forth all the way back through the generations, in order for you to be born, and what are the odds of someone else having exactly the same parents as you meet at the same time as yours, and whose grandparents met at the same time as well etc.

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We are only the perfect distance, angle etc from the sun to produce us, but that doesn't mean that other lifeforms couldn't evolve if the distance, angle etc were slightly different.

This is the whole problem with the fine tuning argument, it starts off with the assumption that we are exactly the only lifeforms possible and that any other lifeforms must evolve exactly like us or not at all.

Its like saying that no other human your age could exist, as you needed your parents to meet at the specific time they met, and your grandparents each had to meet at the specific time they met, and so and so forth all the way back through the generations, in order for you to be born, and what are the odds of someone else having exactly the same parents as you meet at the same time as yours, and whose grandparents met at the same time as well etc.

To be fair to the proponents of "fine tuning" what you have posted isn't correct. The earth orbit is one of the "goldilocks" zone where water can exist in a liquid state - allowing life (of some type) to evolve. Now it's possible that life could exist/evolve based on something else other than liquid water but there's not a lot of evidence for that (nor indeed people looking for it).

The other "fine tuning" argument is primarily about galaxy and star formation, on the basis that small changes in some forces would seem to prevent stars forming - and again without stars producing other elements it seems hard to imagine life in a universe consisting primarily of hydrogen clouds.

Doctor DooM

Well, someone has to post it I guess.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

Douglas Adams, in case you don't know.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

To be fair to the proponents of "fine tuning" what you have posted isn't correct. The earth orbit is one of the "goldilocks" zone where water can exist in a liquid state - allowing life (of some type) to evolve. Now it's possible that life could exist/evolve based on something else other than liquid water but there's not a lot of evidence for that (nor indeed people looking for it).

I wasn't trying to imply anything about life outside the goldilocks zone (hence I said some sort of life could be possible if the distance/angles were slightly different) or not based on water (while technically possible, we dont even need to go that far to debunk the fine tuned argument). The goldilocks zone (of our solar system, it would vary in others due to start size and other factors) is in fact about 1 to 3 AUs from the sun, (AU being 150 million kms, or the mean distance of the earth from the sun). The earth could be another 50 million kms from the sun than it is, with a axis tilted a few degrees in the other direction and possibly even a few percent bigger or smaller and some kind of life would be possible. Given there are trillions upon trillions of stars, the odds of some planet somewhere supporting some kind of water dependent life would be fairly good.

pH wrote: »

The other "fine tuning" argument is primarily about galaxy and star formation, on the basis that small changes in some forces would seem to prevent stars forming - and again without stars producing other elements it seems hard to imagine life in a universe consisting primarily of hydrogen clouds.

The "other" argument is the same as the goldilock zone specific one, just pushed back to an area of less human understanding. We can say now that the habitable zone around our star is about 300 million km wide, but even just 100 years ago? Probably not, as we didn't have the understanding of the solar system. Now we dont have a great understanding of just how everything is effected by the fundamental forces (although wasn't there a paper recently which implied that you could change one of the weak ones without affecting much?) and so religion, yet again, hides in our ignorance. Yes, it might be hard to imagine life arising in hydrogen clouds, but a) our imaginations are not a measure of truth, b) for all we know, that did/is/will happen in a "past"/concurrent/"future" universe and c) that offers a false dichotomy (maybe changing some of the forces enough and stars wont form at all, maybe something else will).

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Introducing 'Carbon life forms may not have developed, but life not as we know it, or life as we are incapable of imagining, may well have developed.' is the poor attempt at poo pooing the fine tuning argument. It basically just dreams up a baseless 'maybe' scenario, while the fine tuning argument deals with what actually IS.

It is you that is incapable of imagining. Carl Sagan was doing it in the 70's.

This planet was here a long time before 'life' was. Life adapted to what was on offer.

And if you want a baseless scenario - it's suggesting an entire universe was created to house our infinitesimal habitat - for a single one of millions of active and extinct species to live on.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

It is you that is incapable of imagining. Carl Sagan was doing it in the 70's.

I was quoting the poster 'Roosh' there. Of course we can imagine. The objection I had, was that just saying, 'Maybe if we were closer/further from the sun, orbiting differently etc that another form of life would have developed' is in no way an argument against fine tuning. Its just a baseless 'what if'.

This planet was here a long time before 'life' was. Life adapted to what was on offer.

Again, cart before the horse. Life 'adapted', skips the quite important little detail of life actually 'forming' in the first place.

And if you want a baseless scenario - it's suggesting an entire universe was created to house our infinitesimal habitat

That indeed would be baseless based on my present understanding of things alright.

- for a single one of millions of active and extinct species to live on.

That again, is probably baseless too.

Knasher

The fine-tuning argument is pretty much that because there are so many variables that need to be just so in order for life to exist, therefore the chances of them being correct on a particular planet, almost approaches zero. Which is an absolutely correct statement.

The problem with this argument is that it forgets that the universe is really really really big. It's a silly argument from start to finish.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

I was quoting the poster 'Roosh' there. Of course we can imagine. The objection I had, was that just saying, 'Maybe if we were closer/further from the sun, orbiting differently etc that another form of life would have developed' is in no way an argument against fine tuning. Its just a baseless 'what if'.

Its not "just saying" and its not baseless. Look at the link I gave pH, there have been scientists looking into this for decades. Even if they haven't, its still a perfectly good objection (if you frame it as a question) to your baseless assertion that no life at all could arise if a planet wasn't exactly the same as earth in every way.

JimiTime

Knasher wrote: »

The fine-tuning argument is pretty much that because there are so many variables that need to be just so in order for life to exist, therefore the chances of them being correct on a particular planet by mere random accident, almost approaches zero. Which is an absolutely correct statement.

Just added the bit in bold for extra clarity.

The problem with this argument is that it forgets that the universe is really really really big. It's a silly argument from start to finish.

So at what point does the size of the universe, impact on the probabilities?

Knasher

JimiTime wrote: »

So at what point does the size of the universe, impact on the probabilities?

I'm just going to pull a number out of thin air here, but lets say that the probability dictated by the variables is 1 trillion to one that a star would have a planet which is conducive to life. In a universe with an estimated 100 sextillion stars (that is a lower bound btw), the you would probably expect about 100 billion stars that are "fine tuned" with life producing planets. Now, that obviously doesn't change the probabilities, what changes is the ability to draw conclusions from those probabilities.

It kinda reminds me of a video over on the creationism thread where the guy threw a number of balls into the air once and said that evolution is kinda like the chances of them landing in a circle. However there is nothing stopping them from landing in a circle and if you did it enough times the probability of it happening would approach one. In fact if you took the random arrangement that the balls actually landed in and tried to duplicate it, the probability of a circle is actually much greater than the probability of getting the balls in the same random position again.

roosh

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, it seemed like the cart is before the horse there. The fine tuning argument, rather than being the assumption, is actually an argument that looks to fatten out the hypothesis that something relying on so many variables is unlikely to be down to chance.

The assumption here is that the existence of life requires these exact variables; when all that can be deduced is that life "as we know it" requires these exact variables; this is dealing with what IS.

That life as we know it exists in accordance with these variables, doesn't mean that if those variables were different, no life would exist. So what appears to be fine tuning, may not necessarily be fine tuning.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, like I already said, it doesn't look to prove, but rather beg the question.

It also begs the question as to how we can know that life wouldn't exist given different "settings".

Duke Leonal Felmet

99.9% of the known universe is uninhabitable to all known life. In fact, the vast majority of Earth is uninhabitable too (it's not just the crust, you know...).

So... where is the fine tuning again?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Just added the bit in bold for extra clarity.



So at what point does the size of the universe, impact on the probabilities?

Well if the universe, or multiverse, is infinitely big (both of which are possibilities), then all things that can happen do happen.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

I was quoting the poster 'Roosh' there. Of course we can imagine. The objection I had, was that just saying, 'Maybe if we were closer/further from the sun, orbiting differently etc that another form of life would have developed' is in no way an argument against fine tuning. Its just a baseless 'what if'.

In other words your fine-tuning argument only works if you stifle speculation? Life has evolved and survived in the most extreme environments on earth. Environments that undoubtedly exist (or existed) on other planets.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, cart before the horse. Life 'adapted', skips the quite important little detail of life actually 'forming' in the first place.

So a passing alien craft left the seeds of life. Grand. Hey, it's as possible as any other suggestion!

JimiTime wrote: »

That indeed would be baseless based on my present understanding of things alright.

That again, is probably baseless too.

What is the fine-tuning argument if not an argument that God made the earth for humans? Sure he made it for the other animals, but we're the top dogs, no?

robindch

Dades wrote: »

we're the top dogs, no?

Yep -- says so in Genesis 1:26:

Some Scribe wrote:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Caused a lot of trouble, that word "dominion" did -- see Dominionism.

Omentum

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

The fine-tuning argument posits that this Universe was designed for intelligent life to evolve after the values of constants were adjusted.

The universe is and life just is. It doesnt need to have been created or tweaked with. If the universe is infinite, then there will be an infinite number of conditions. Life is one of these conditions. Death and destruction is another.
This does not require a creator rather a supporting force.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

When you tell a believer that abiogenesis i.e. that life spontaneously formed through natural processes, they will be quick to dismiss it and conclude that God sewed the seeds at the start of evolution.

Its the word spontaneous they have a major affliction too, similar to the word create with Atheists. You are challenging the very core of the thought system so the response will be to defend that system.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

So it's either the Universe was unfinely finely-tuned, or that it was natural. Either way, the theist must appear embarrassed.

Anyone ever wonder about this inconsistency by the theist?

The universe is. It doesnt have to have been anything else. Our human brains operate within the confines of basic laws and comprehension is also confined to these. We understand time and distance and impose these limitations on the universe. When these laws don't answer all the questions many people assume it was a creator. If we couldn't comprehend duality, past and present, life and death, or beginning and end, the question of where the universe came from wouldn't exist, the notion of a creator would cease to exist.

Also i think alot of theists realise there is inconsistencies. They are very good at avoiding them. But aren't we all.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

In other words your fine-tuning argument only works if you stifle speculation?

No. You misunderstand. The issue, is that 'what if' speculation does not nullify the fine tuning argument. It merely begs a question. Unlike the fine tune argument though, which has the reality of existence supporting it, the speculative 'what if', is just that, speculation. Which is fine, but its not a good argument against the fine tuning argument.

So a passing alien craft left the seeds of life. Grand. Hey, it's as possible as any other suggestion!

Well, the fine tuning argument makes no suggestion as to what did the fine tuning, so one is free to speculate/hypothesise etc.

What is the fine-tuning argument if not an argument that God made the earth for humans?

the fine tuning argument does not assume any specifics about what or who done the tuning. Just that it seems highly unlikely that our existence came about by random chance.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, the fine tuning argument makes no suggestion as to what did the fine tuning, so one is free to speculate/hypothesise etc.

Well, it's a bit like "intelligent design" which doesn't specify a causal agent either -- I don't think too many philosophers are taken in by the omission.

The Quadratic Equation

Sonics2k wrote: »

Funnily enough, Evolutionists find the idea of creationism to based entirely on fantasy and mythology.

See, unlike the various religions, Evolution has been proven to exist. The big issue with the Christian idea of Creationism is that there is no proof of it, only words in a book written by biased authors with no evidence to back it up, and it was force fed to the masses. The same problem occurs for all the other major religions, not just Christianity. Hence the major problem for you guys. Which creation theory is correct, there are so so many to choose from.

But Evolution, well that's the same world wide.

There's one fatal flaw with your theory, most Christians don't have an issue, or see any conflict in the theory of Evolution.

pH

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

There's one fatal flaw with your theory, most Christians don't have an issue, or see any conflict in the theory of Evolution.

The theory of evolution fully and comprehensively explains the existence all life on earth (including us) from the point that a self-replicating molecule came about.

You seriously saying the the majority of Christians in the world today don't see that statement as in conflict with their belief?

Knasher

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

So it's either the Universe was unfinely finely-tuned, or that it was natural.

If I were to put on my theist hat for a second I'd imagine that the reasoning goes something along the lines that the fine tuning is an ongoing process.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

No. You misunderstand. The issue, is that 'what if' speculation does not nullify the fine tuning argument. It merely begs a question. Unlike the fine tune argument though, which has the reality of existence supporting it, the speculative 'what if', is just that, speculation. Which is fine, but its not a good argument against the fine tuning argument.


Well, the fine tuning argument makes no suggestion as to what did the fine tuning, so one is free to speculate/hypothesise etc.


the fine tuning argument does not assume any specifics about what or who done the tuning. Just that it seems highly unlikely that our existence came about by random chance.

Am I invisible or something? Can you just not see my posts debunking this? Or Roosh's?

Mark Hamill

Knasher wrote: »

If I were to put on my theist hat for a second I'd imagine that the reasoning goes something along the lines that the fine tuning is an ongoing process.

Lol, infinitely powerful, all knowing god requires multiple attempts over billions of years to fine tune just the very outer layer of single planet of one single solar system out of the billions of solar systems in order to get it just right to support human life (along with about a million other life forms that, given half a chance, would eat said human life).

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think it is an attempt to prove anything, but rather a gentle push towards a reasonable outlook I.E. we are the perfect distance from the sun, spinning at the right speed and angle as well as the multitude of other factors on earth itself, and the cosmos. So many countless variables, that just so happen to be right. It basically raises the question, 'How likely is it that this is a random accident'.

Introducing 'Carbon life forms may not have developed, but life not as we know it, or life as we are incapable of imagining, may well have developed.' is the poor attempt at poo pooing the fine tuning argument. It basically just dreams up a baseless 'maybe' scenario, while the fine tuning argument deals with what actually IS.

Yes but the problem with the fine tune argument as applied to humans or life is that it assumes that what actually is is supposed to be what actually is.

There is certainly a valid question to be asked over certain properties of the universe. For example most physics models has the universe destroying itself after the Big Bang as the same amount of matter and anti-matter should have been produced which should have counter-acted either other.

Obviously that didn't happen, and it is a very valid question to ask why that didn't happen.

We run into problems when we assume purpose to these events though. Saying that didn't happen is fine (and obviously correct). Saying it didn't happen in order to produce human life in this universe is an assumption too far I feel

Knasher

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Lol, infinitely powerful, all knowing god requires multiple attempts over billions of years to fine tune just the very outer layer of single planet of one single solar system out of the billions of solar systems in order to get it just right to support human life (along with about a million other life forms that, given half a chance, would eat said human life).

Well you start out with 300 sextillion (observable) suns taking you about 9 billion years before getting it right. Then it takes you another 30 million years to make the earth. Then it takes another billion years to start creating life, and 999 million before you get the species that looks like you. Then it takes 194,000 years before you make your first appearance and give them morality and rules. 4000 years before your realize you rules were kinda crappy and make a loophole. And then 2000 years of appearing less and less (correlating exactly with mans ability to actually detect you) until you are finally reduced to appearing on the occasional slice of toast.

God may be so inefficient as to be completely indistinguishable from natural processes, but damn if he isn't persistent.

It might be interesting to note that god chooses to appear on more toast in religious countries that he chooses to appear in non-religious countries. Perhaps he hasn't quite finished fine tuning those ones yet.

Zombrex

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but I felt obliged to post this.

The fine-tuning argument posits that this Universe was designed for intelligent life to evolve after the values of constants were adjusted.

When you tell a believer that abiogenesis i.e. that life spontaneously formed through natural processes, they will be quick to dismiss it and conclude that God sewed the seeds at the start of evolution.

Concluding, how it the Universe fine-tuned if God had to intervene later on in his design to sew those seeds? If he didn't sew the seeds, then it was abiogenesis.

So it's either the Universe was unfinely finely-tuned, or that it was natural. Either way, the theist must appear embarrassed.

Anyone ever wonder about this inconsistency by the theist?

The conflict arises from the different reasons for the existence of religious thinking in the first place.

The primary reasons for religious thinking is the notion of agency in nature. This will, by placing agents in nature, produce the notion that nature will from time to time produce behavior contrary to normal mundane circumstances. In other words some events are special, that they have acted against a natural flow for a particular purpose.

Or to put it another way we think events have happened that ordinarily wouldn't have happened, for a purposeful reason. This is taken to the extreme for religion and the notion of a benevolent deity manipulating events to allow certain outcomes.

This contrasts with a less basic yet still instinctive notion that something created the universe around us for some purpose. While this notion manifests itself in humans at a low level, some rational consequences of such a notion only raise when one thinks logically about what that means.

And this is where the conflict arises, the notion of a deity who creates the rules and laws of nature then proceeding to tweak them after the fact to produce desired out comes is rather illogical.

But this conflict only arises at an intellectual level far above the basic instincts that produce the two competing and ultimately incompatible ideas.

The Quadratic Equation

pH wrote: »

The theory of evolution fully and comprehensively explains the existence all life on earth (including us) from the point that a self-replicating molecule came about.

Thats right yes, everything has a cause.

pH wrote: »

You seriously saying the the majority of Christians in the world today don't see that statement as in conflict with their belief?

Yes, the Catholic church finds it compatible with Catholic beliefs, and Catholics make up the majority of Christians. Also a sizeable amount of non Catholic Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution.

MisterEpicurus

Knasher wrote: »

God may be so inefficient as to be completely indistinguishable from natural processes, but damn if he isn't persistent.

That's why I prefer to call it the 'Fine-Illusion' rather than 'Fine-Tuning'.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

No. You misunderstand. The issue, is that 'what if' speculation does not nullify the fine tuning argument. It merely begs a question. Unlike the fine tune argument though, which has the reality of existence supporting it, the speculative 'what if', is just that, speculation. Which is fine, but its not a good argument against the fine tuning argument.

What you misunderstand is that, given the utter enormity and unfathomable age of the universe, some of us don't believe the odds of a planet like ours existing is that unbelievable. The universe is that vast and that old that we don't need to make assumptions like those required for the fine tuning argument. On the contrary, it gives us the incentive to look further and see what other worlds are out there. (Also see Mark Hamill's ignored posts.)

This concept is of course just a wolf in sheep's clothing... a seemingly unrelated seed of an idea - that if cultivated - will become an arrow in the quiver of the religious warrior.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

There's one fatal flaw with your theory, most Christians don't have an issue, or see any conflict in the theory of Evolution.

50% of the Christians in this thread do.