Fine Tuned For Life? Surely not! Off Topic? Definitely!

nagirrac

I would encourage you to live your life to the full, follow your bliss wherever it takes you, and maintain an open mind. On the latter point, I would respectively encourage you to reconsider your 100% atheist belief. We have (currently at least) no way of knowing (knowledge as opposed to belief) whether there is a creative intelligence behind our universe or not. Although atheists dispute this argument, there is more evidence (albeit subjective) for a creative intelligence than for any currently proposed alternative.

What we know from science is that the universe is very finely tuned, otherwise we could not exist. If we accept the big bang theory as the start of our physical universe as we observe it, there are really only two logical possibilities, either 1) a conscious intelligence designed it as such, or 2) ours is one of an infinite number of universes that happens to have the right physical properties for us to exist. We cannot observe any other universes so imo belief in the latter is as objectively speculative as the former.

sbsquarepants

nagirrac wrote: »

Although atheists dispute this argument, there is more evidence (albeit subjective) for a creative intelligence than for any currently proposed alternative. .

As predicted, i dispute this argument!

nagirrac wrote: »

What we know from science is that the universe is very finely tuned, otherwise we could not exist. If we accept the big bang theory as the start of our physical universe as we observe it, there are really only two logical possibilities, either 1) a conscious intelligence designed it as such, or 2) ours is one of an infinite number of universes that happens to have the right physical properties for us to exist. We cannot observe any other universes so imo belief in the latter is as objectively speculative as the former.

Once something has actually happened, how unlikely it was to happen ceases to exist. If you roll a dice the odds of getting a particular result are 1 in 6. If you're after rolling a dice and getting, say a 3 - those odds are now meaningless. It has happened.
The odds of any particular set of euro million numbers coming up is astronomical - but every draw one of those ridiculously unlikely events happens - every single draw. Yet if anyone was to predict a minute before the draw would this particular event happen, they would almost certainly say no - it's just far too improbable.
Same thing with your very existence - the odds of that one particular sperm, hitting the one particular egg, to make you the particular person that you are - it makes the euro millions look like tossing a coin. Go back down the generations, and statistically speaking there is zero chance of your existence. But yet here you are.

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

What we know from science is that the universe is very finely tuned, otherwise we could not exist.

I've always been confused as to why this argument ever really gained any serious traction. It is a nearly perfect example of the fallacy begging the question. In order for the universe to be "finely tuned" you have to start with what the universe is supposed to be finely tuned for. If for example I were to suggest that he universe is "finely tuned" for X (any extant thing), you can show that if the universe were different, X could not exist. Can we all argee for example that the universe is clearly finely tuned to allow the existance of Hydrogen? Human, oh, they are just a by-product of a universe that allows hydrogen to exist. After all, hydrogen can, and does, exist quite happily almost everywhere in the whole universe. It is directly involved in most of the major things happening in the universe like the formation and burning of stars. It's fusion is what gives rise to other elements. We are all Hydorgen derivatives! Human's and life as we know it on the otherhand can, as far as we so far can tell, exist on a only a single planet in an unimaginably large cosmos. The universe was fine tuned for them? Sure doesn't look like it. It would be a bit like suggesting that ecology on earth is fine tuned for a species of lizard that can only survive on a single tiny island in the middle of the pacific ocean.

In short, to accept this argument you have to start with the assumption that humans/life is the goal of the universe. This is exactly what the argument is trying to demonstrate. If I created a universe that wasn't turned for anything in particular, it would look exactly, perfectly like it had be tuned for whatever just happens to be in it.

sbsquarepants

HHobo wrote: »

In short, to accept this argument you have to start with the assumption that humans/life is the goal of the universe. This is exactly what the argument is trying to demonstrate. If I created a universe that wasn't turned for anything in particular, it would look exactly, perfectly like it had be tuned for whatever just happens to be in it.

Exactly, it's cart before the horse stuff - the universe doesn't suit us, we suit it. The universe could get by just fine without humans in it, it has already done so for billions of years. The reverse - not so much!

Zombrex

HHobo wrote: »

I've always been confused as to why this argument ever really gained any serious traction.

Because people are fecking stupid :pac:

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999% of the universe kills all known life instantly.

But some how the universe is "finely tuned" for life. :rolleyes:

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

But some how the universe is "finely tuned" for life. :rolleyes:

On the plus side,
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999% of the universe is non-religious.

I think that should give us all a little hope.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

On the plus side,
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999% of the universe is non-religious.

I think that should give us all a little hope.

That made my day

Sarky

I think you missed a few orders of magnitude there. Then again there is a character limit for each post...

krudler

Sarky wrote: »

I think you missed a few orders of magnitude there. Then again there is a character limit for each post...

We can't repel orders of that magnitude!


sorry...

nagirrac

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

Sarky

nagirrac wrote: »

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

Are you sure you've been in scientific research for years? They didn't just say it to keep you happy?

Obliq

Sarky wrote: »

Are you sure you've been in scientific research for years? They didn't just say it to keep you happy?

I've got that deja vu feeling again....

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Are you sure you've been in scientific research for years? They didn't just say it to keep you happy?

Nothing constructive to offer then?
Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset.
Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.

Obliq

nagirrac wrote: »

Nothing constructive to offer then?
Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset.
Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.

'Ere mate - it's you who's been calling every person on this thread closed minded and told us to look at some book to broaden our minds. And there you go again with the "dogmatic atheist mindset" insults. What makes you think your insults are less insulting than the one you just got?

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh dear, not this again.

Since there is no credible evidence to suggest any kind of deity I'm not sure what you mean by "more evidence than for any proposed alternative"

Secondly, the fine-tuning argument, out of all the arguments for the existence of a God, is the most fundamentally flawed. In fact, if I were to start detailing all the problems of the fine-tuning argument then it would probably end up being the longest post in boards history. Just one tiny example of the problems with this argument is that we can already show that life is possible without two of the four fundamental forces of nature and yet you think the universe is fine-tuned.

I am disappinted in you oldernwiser as you generally are a reasonable and well informed poster unlike the more rabid atheists on here.

Every eminent astrophysicist I am aware of with the exception of Stenger thinks that the universe is fine tuned. They differ in what conclusions one should draw. The only two credible proposals, creative intelligence and the multiverse, have one thing in common, they are both impossible to demonstrate scientifically as both are unfalsifiable (at present at least).

It is disappointing that seemingly intelligent people on this forum continue to use science to make their atheist argument, when science by and large has nothing to say on the subject of the presence or absence of God. One would expect that from religious nuts but not from the supposedly open minded.

Sarky

nagirrac wrote: »

Every eminent astrophysicist I am aware of with the exception of Stenger thinks that the universe is fine tuned.

Become aware of more astrophysicists, then. The one I live with thinks you're talking rubbish.

nagirrac

Obliq wrote: »

'Ere mate - it's you who's been calling every person on this thread closed minded and told us to look at some book to broaden our minds. And there you go again with the "dogmatic atheist mindset" insults. What makes you think your insults are less insulting than the one you just got?

So you would equate calling someone's beliefs "dogmatic atheist" with being called "moronic", a "rube" and "fecking stupid" as I have been on this forum?
Interesting

Heaven forbid one should read a book. What an illogical position to hold. What do you suggest, better to form an opinion based on ignorance?

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Become aware of more astrophysicists, then. The one I live with thinks you're talking rubbish.

name one

Sarky

I'm not naming the guy I live with! He has a right to his privacy.

But google astrophysicist and fine-tuned. Ah go on.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

I'm not naming the guy I live with! He has a right to his privacy.

But google astrophysicist and fine-tuned. Ah go on.

I have no interest in who you live with.

Name one astrophysicist other than Stenger who argues against fine tuning. You are the one arguing against fine tuning so the onus is on you to provide a source. I have provided dozens.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it.

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity.

If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.

You do seem to argue very much from authority - i.e. this is what eminent scientists X, Y and Z believe, therefore it must be a credible theory.

Scientific theories/hypotheses can and should be evaluated on their merits, not simply accepted because of the (supposedly infallible?) eminent scientists who subscribe to them.

Obliq

nagirrac wrote: »

So you would equate calling someone's beliefs "dogmatic atheist" with being called "moronic", a "rube" and "fecking stupid" as I have been on this forum?
Interesting

Heaven forbid one should read a book. What an illogical position to hold. What do you suggest, better to form an opinion based on ignorance?

I suggest that if you want someone to read a book, or better form an opinion, then ask them nicely. Did it ever occur that the reason you're out on your own here is that you seem to deliberately set yourself apart from any reasoned opinion that anyone has offered you?

BNJT

krudler wrote: »

There was a sickening comment on facebook recently when those kids were killed in the school shooting, something along the lines of "those angels were called to heaven early"

Yeah, did anyone see the inter-faith vigil led by Obama after the Sandy Hook shootings? More than one of the speakers thanked god for taking away their children. I also found that horrifying.

However as an atheist I do believe there is an afterlife of sorts. My grandfather, also an atheist, passed away last year. He had almost 20 descendents, who he had personally influenced in a positive way. I believe that his memory, not to mention his genetic lineage which influences how I and my family members will look and act to some extent, will be carried on in our family for generations, highlighted by his numerous letters, photographs, and other personalia.

I also find this notion much more comforting than I could that of an "afterlife prison" where one would be forcibly incarcerated for eterntity with ones co-deceased family members (how would that even work - would they remain the age they died at?) , while compelled to observe the happenings on earth. I think this is how the heaven many people believe in would operate.

nagirrac

Obliq wrote: »

I suggest that if you want someone to read a book, or better form an opinion, then ask them nicely. Did it ever occur that the reason you're out on your own here is that you seem to deliberately set yourself apart from any reasoned opinion that anyone has offered you?

No in short. The reason I am out on my own is that I hold a different mindset to that of an atheist. I would have thought that was obvious. My opinions are simply different to those of an atheist on the belief in God question. On many other issues discussed here I generally agree with most people.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset. Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.

Jeez, nagirrac, would you ever grow up?

Your sleights are tediously predictable and they'll start earning you cards and bans if you can't up your game significantly.

Obliq

nagirrac wrote: »

No in short. The reason I am out on my own is that I hold a different mindset to that of an atheist. I would have thought that was obvious. My opinions are simply different to those of an atheist on the belief in God question. On many other issues discussed here I generally agree with most people.

Hmm. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but there are religious folk (who obviously hold a different mindset to atheists) who post up here and get a better reaction. I think it's because most of the ones that venture here manage to do so without preaching. You have a tendency to come across as a bit preachy, if you don't mind me saying so....politely, like.

swampgas

Sorry, realised there was another point I wished to query:

nagirrac wrote: »

The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point.

The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.

If everyone is "making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning", then what claims are they making that you think worthy of merit?

BNJT

If the universe is truly infinite, then it must include all possible allignments of matter and energy. The earth and its people are simply one of these infinite allignments. How is that fine-tuning?

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

name one

Neil Tyson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mij4DYYnkF8

Can you name an astrophysicist, voted the "Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" by People Magazine, who thinks the universe was fine-tuned?

nagirrac

swampgas wrote: »

You do seem to argue very much from authority - i.e. this is what eminent scientists X, Y and Z believe, therefore it must be a credible theory.

Scientific theories/hypotheses can and should be evaluated on their merits, not simply accepted because of the (supposedly infallible?) eminent scientists who subscribe to them.

I accept that, but do you not admit or at least consider that atheists are the most guilty of this? The theory of evolution is consistently used as an example to argue for lack of belief in a creative intelligence. While it is a beautiful theory and can be used to blow holes through illogical "young earth creationist" positions, it says absolutely nothing about why there is a universe to begin with.

Sarky

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Neil Tyson:

I wasn't going to mention him, because I thought it was too obvious.