Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Universe may not be 'fine-tuned' for life

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No?

    What does that have to do with the argument that the universe looks fine tuned for life?

    Are you saying that it does if you are a Christian who believes the universe is incomplete?

    Are surely that simply means that the universe doesn't look fine tuned without adding this assumption into the mix?

    OK, to try and uncross those wires. I'm actually talking about the size of the habitable universe as having any bearing on what Christians believe. I've moved on slightly form the fine tuned issue and focused on the following:
    ... the huge proportion of the universe that is utterly devoid of environments necessary for our form of life...

    Does that context make the thrust of my posts to you any clearer?


  • #53
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    Er, it's you guys that are saying that the universe was designed for humanity.

    Can't think of anything more amazingly presumptuous than that!

    You can move the goalposts all you want. It certainly doesn't remove the fact of how presumtuous your comment was.
    I haven't claimed that the universe was designed 'for humanity', again thats you being presumtuous. The only presumptions here are your own, and surprise, surprise, the cronies thank you for it. Throw a fish, and watch 'em clap their fins.

    BTW: I think one of your biggest issues Robin is the term 'you guys'.


  • #54
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »

    a) Who said the universe was for man and man alone?
    (

    Genesis 1
    ...He also made the stars.
    17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
    18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness

    Say's here that he made the stars to make light on earth when it was night-time. Moving along...

    More Genesis still chapter one,
    God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

    So, God creates universe to hold stars to light the earth, then fills earth with animals and creates man. Tells man to fill the earth and subdue it and rule over all the other animals on board.

    Universe is made to for stars, stars for light on earth, earth for man to subdue.
    Ergo God makes Universe for man...

    Now, ask me about designing universes.


  • #55
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    You can move the goalposts all you want. It certainly doesn't remove the fact of how presumtuous your comment was.
    His comment was merely pointing out the flaw in the fine tuned argument. The universe does not look designed using their own criteria.

    You are saying that he cannot say the universe does not look designed because he has never designed a universe nor would he recognise a designed universe if he saw one. While there are flaws in that logic as well there is an over arching point in there that I agree with. For all we know this is what a designed universe looks like

    The point though is that Robin is merely using the criteria that the fine tuned supporters are using themselves to justify the argument that the universe if fine tuned.

    They argue that the universe looks fine tuned because the variables of physics are in such a way that allows carbon based life to evolve in this universe, and that if they were off that wouldn't happen. That is their criteria for what a designed universe looks like.

    Leaving aside that they no more know what a designed universe looks like than me or Robin do, the flaw is present even accepting their criteria as a basis.

    Using their own criteria the universe does not look fine tuned for life.

    There are billions upon billions of other things in the universe that are more common than life that are produced by the same "tuning" of these variables. There are more stars in this galaxy alone than humans that have ever existed. There are more stars in this galaxy cluster than life forms that have ever existed.

    So using the fine tuning argument itself the universe does not look like it was fine tuned to produce life

    All this reminds me of the quote from Haldane (some what disputed that he actually said this but interesting all the same) When asked what could he infer from his study of biology about the mind of the Creator Haldane replied "An inordinate fondness to beetles"

    He was refering to the fact that there are currently 350,000 know species of beetle, and probably thousands more. If an alien visited this world and was told that God created it for one of these groups of life forms it is rather unlikely that he would come to the conclusion that it was in fact created for homo-sapiens.

    The same could easily be said for the universe. I find it highly unlikely that a visitor from another dimension when asked to guess what God created the universe for would look down to our tiny corner of the the tiny corner of the tiny corner of universe at the odd chemical reactions taking place on a small blue planet covered mostly in water and say "There, that is what it was created for!"


  • #56
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Does that context make the thrust of my posts to you any clearer?
    No?

    Perhaps you should start again and just say what your point is?

    Are you try to say that just because the universe is vast and uninhabitable that doesn't stop you being a Christian or believing in Genesis that God made the universe for us? :confused:

    If that was your point good for you but that isn't what we are discussing, we are discussing the logic of the fine tuned argument. So I'm not sure why you are bringing that up or why you say that is "beside the point" ... what point are you making that the vast amount of the universe is incapable of sustain life is irrelevant?


  • #57
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    If, as a parent I was designing a garden for my kids, I wouldn't

    (a) make it inconceivably large,

    (b) make it impossible to visit most of it

    (c) make all but the tiniest section of it dangerously uninhabitable

    (d) give my kids the ability to render what little bit is habitable, entirely uninhabitable.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    a) Who said the universe was for man and man alone?

    b) What about it? The earth has proved to be large enough to hold 6 billion of us, and even now there are places and habitats that remain unfettered from our influence.

    c) Pretty much they same point as b. If vast swathes of the universe are uninhabitable, then why complain about not being able to visit them? I'm quite happy not to hop in a spaceship destined for the sun.

    d) It sounds like you would prefer to hermetically seal the the garden in plastic, form a defensive perimeter and tether the children at a safe distance from your creation?


    a) The Bible. I know it doesn't contain the sentence "The universe was made for humans!", but you have to admit that it's implied, as studiorat demonstrated in his post.


    b) I'm sure the first sea farers heard that exact same argument in the 15th century. Many people (possibly including your ancestral bloodline judging by your attitude) thought that they were bound to fall off the earth. "We're grand here in spain, lets sit here and fester."

    c) "Pretty much" the same point as b. Vast swathes of the Earth (eg. the sea) were uninhabitable to the early explorers. Do you lack the passion to visit the stars? Not literally walk on the stars as you think: ("I'm quite happy not to hop in a spaceship destined for the sun") , but visit the stars in a Carl Sagan sort of way.

    d) So you agree that we are capable of destroying the earth? Nuclear winter ftw?


  • #58
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Overblood wrote: »
    d) So you agree that we are capable of destroying the earth? Nuclear winter ftw?

    Careful now... you're thinking small and human scale now... we can't destroy the Earth, she's a big auld girl... the most we can do is make the surface unlivable for humans, most animals and plants.


  • #59
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Here's a thought for the "fine tuners", describe the characteristics of a universe that doesn't look "fine tuned".

    This fine tuning stuff has been described as a number of knobs, and if they weren't in exactly the same position then stars/planets/matter couldn't form. But if the opposite was true, if there was a huge range of acceptable values, if the position of the knobs didn't matter then wouldn't there be another argument that this was just as "miraculous" and highly improbable, that somehow the fundamental laws "always" produced a suitable universe.

    So I ask the people who seriously believe in this stuff, what would the characteristics of an 'undesigned' Universe look like? and how could you tell a designed (or planned for life) universe from one where it all happened "by accident"?


  • #60
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    kiffer wrote: »
    Careful now... you're thinking small and human scale now... we can't destroy the Earth, she's a big auld girl... the most we can do is make the surface unlivable for humans, most animals and plants.

    I know we can't make the earth actually disintegrate into space. I was referring to robindch's point (d)
    give my kids the ability to render what little bit is habitable, entirely uninhabitable.

    where he mentions the word "uninhabitable", obviously in relation to humans. When I said destroy I didn't mean total destruction, although I can't imagine much worse a fate for humans than worldwide nuclear war.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    surprise, surprise, the cronies thank you for it. Throw a fish, and watch 'em clap their fins.
    You should move into preaching :)
    JimiTime wrote: »
    You can move the goalposts all you want. [...] I haven't claimed that the universe was designed 'for humanity', again thats you being presumtuous. The only presumptions here are your own
    So, as a christian, you don't believe that there's anything special about humans?


  • #62
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    the verse in question, I gather, is Gen 1:28. Not a whole lot about the universe there.
    At the time that Genesis was written down, the universe was believed to consist of a flat plate with a canopy of water suspended over it. The universe was the Earth.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Assuming for a moment there is a God, do you suppose he should have made all the universe accessible to us?
    The original point -- long since lost in thread clutter -- is that creating a universe 99.999999(etc)% of which is dangerously uninhabitable seems a deeply silly thing to do if your main aim in creating the whole show is to dole out belief-strength-tests to certain members of the species that occupies the only habitable 0.00000(etc)1%.


  • #63
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    You should move into preaching :)


    Who'd have me Robin, Who'd have me:(:)
    So, as a christian, you don't believe that there's anything special about humans?


    Again with the moving goalposts. The 'universe' not being designed 'for humaity', does not equate to not thinking Humans are special.


  • #64
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Who'd have me Robin, Who'd have me:(:)
    hmmm... there's always the spot at the top of Grafton street...
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again with the moving goalposts. The 'universe' not being designed 'for humaity', does not equate to not thinking Humans are special.
    It's less about moving goalposts, and more about the far harder task of trying to find a question that will produce a simple, straight-forward answer!


  • #65
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    hmmm... there's always the spot at the top of Grafton street...

    I contemplated speakers corner in Hyde park on occasion believe it or not, but that was when I thought I knew it all. I'm more the student than the teacher at present, but I'll keep it in mind. I'll be the one getting abused by the local drunks, but from my years of busking, I got my thick skin:)
    It's less about moving goalposts, and more about the far harder task of trying to find a question that will produce a simple, straight-forward answer!

    If you were asking straight questions, you'd get straight answers. You seem to operate with so many assumptions, I'd hate to lend to you acquiring more, or indeed confirming others.


  • #66
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I contemplated speakers corner in Hyde park on occasion believe it or not, but that was when I thought I knew it all. I'm more the student than the teacher at present, but I'll keep it in mind. I'll be the one getting abused by the local drunks, but from my years of busking, I got my thick skin:)



    If you were asking straight questions, you'd get straight answers. You seem to operate with so many assumptions, I'd hate to lend to you acquiring more, or indeed confirming others.

    Erm, I think it is you guys who are operating on so many assumptions. I mean, there are many countless questions about God that require answering which usually result in some long-winded, circular logic and always ends up going nowhere or ending with 'He works in mysterious ways'.

    Our requires just one assumption: 'There is no God'.

    Simple.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    that was when I thought I knew it all.
    I'm glad that things have changed <cough, cough> :p
    JimiTime wrote: »
    If you were asking straight questions, you'd get straight answers. You seem to operate with so many assumptions, I'd hate to lend to you acquiring more, or indeed confirming others.
    Well, let's rephrase one question from above:

    Do you believe that humanity is your deity's most precious creation?


  • #68
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm glad that things have changed <cough, cough> :p

    Touché:)
    Well, let's rephrase one question from above:

    Do you believe that humanity is your deity's most precious creation?

    No. Thats not to say that we're not though. I think it would be presumtuous on my part to think so though. What I 'do know', is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for it. I don't see a need or a reason to start thinking if there are things or beings he 'likes more' or whatever. Our knowledge of his creation and indeed his workings are a mere drop in a bucket.


  • #69
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Our knowledge of his creation and indeed his workings are a mere drop in a bucket.

    It's good that you admit to not having all the answers, a lot of religious folk are only too happy to turn to the bible for answers. But don't fret; science is working to fill that metaphorical bucket.

    The bucket would be almost full by now if it weren't for religion, but that's another story for another thread.

    JimiTime wrote: »
    And you know about designing universes of course.

    As I said, science is probing that enigma as we speak. Seems like god is running out of places to hide. Whenever, if ever, scientists find out what caused it all, no doubt the Vatican will steal the discovery and exhibit it as a testament to gods awesomeness, like they've done with evolution and many other findings.


  • #70
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu1iZW29GTw


    Dawkins on why Anthropic Principle is a profoundly atheistic argument, not a theistic one.

    At 45mins.


  • #71
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    funky shirt...


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Flamed Diving wrote: »

    Dawkins on why Anthropic Principle is a profoundly atheistic argument, not a theistic one.

    At 45mins.

    What is quite rewarding about watching that is his explanation of argument methods. I would be quite happy to listen to a similar argument from the other side using similar argument methods.
    He may have what many consider fundamental views but he certainly appears to be using logic rather than relying on one book of stated belief.


  • #73
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg


    Popular YouTube scientist Thunderf00t discusses anthropic principle. I think this is where I must have heard the argument I used above.


Advertisement