geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Basic chemistry. Life needs structures of a certian size to be able to exist in a fairly stable form. Most sets of fundimental constants won't allow for this.
The fine tuning argument
- Thread starter Robin
- Start date
Basic chemistry. Life needs structures of a certian size to be able to exist in a fairly stable form. Most sets of fundimental constants won't allow for this.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Stars are kinda useful for provideing elements heavier than lithium. black holes and pulsars are rather less common than stars.
I think that there are two different fine-tuning arguments. One is an argument for the presence of fine-tuning, and one is an argument that the presence of fine-tuning serves as an argument for the presence of God. This may be bleedin' obvious, but it may help to distinguish that you are talking about the latter.
As has been mentioned already, it is part of science, and a valuable exercise, to speculate as to why observations have that pattern and only that pattern. Right now, it appears that the pattern of the universe is such that it allowed for something 'interesting' to happen. I think we can all agree that we aren't necessarily talking about conditions identical to our own, but rather about conditions that could lead to any sort of 'life'. It isn't that we are the puddle wondering how it is that we have just the right shape to fit into this hole, but rather how it is that there are holes in which puddles can form.
Someone made a comment in another thread a while ago that other values for the physical constants lead to universes which don't have the requisite 'granularity' to allow for something 'interesting' to happen. So it is a valuable question - what is the degree of freedom involved in the values for various physical constants and what accounts for or constrains that freedom? But what characteristics can be inferred about the presence of a constraint? More specifically, can we infer that the presence of a constraint would necessarily also have the characteristic of 'capricious interest in humans'? And does that constraint necessarily infer a connection to a set of otherwise completely unrelated observations (i.e. those observations upon which the idea of God was based)?
The fine-tuning argument for the presence of God does not address those issues. At this point it still has the form of the remarkably trivial argument that the sun rising in the morning infers a sun-riser, a lottery winner infers a lottery win-maker, and a watch infers a watch-maker. Which is why I wonder whether the presentation of the argument here is inaccurate, or whether I an forced to consider that seemingly intelligent and thoughtful people are rendered a bit stupid when it comes to Apologetics.
Linda
As has been mentioned already, it is part of science, and a valuable exercise, to speculate as to why observations have that pattern and only that pattern. Right now, it appears that the pattern of the universe is such that it allowed for something 'interesting' to happen. I think we can all agree that we aren't necessarily talking about conditions identical to our own, but rather about conditions that could lead to any sort of 'life'. It isn't that we are the puddle wondering how it is that we have just the right shape to fit into this hole, but rather how it is that there are holes in which puddles can form.
Someone made a comment in another thread a while ago that other values for the physical constants lead to universes which don't have the requisite 'granularity' to allow for something 'interesting' to happen. So it is a valuable question - what is the degree of freedom involved in the values for various physical constants and what accounts for or constrains that freedom? But what characteristics can be inferred about the presence of a constraint? More specifically, can we infer that the presence of a constraint would necessarily also have the characteristic of 'capricious interest in humans'? And does that constraint necessarily infer a connection to a set of otherwise completely unrelated observations (i.e. those observations upon which the idea of God was based)?
The fine-tuning argument for the presence of God does not address those issues. At this point it still has the form of the remarkably trivial argument that the sun rising in the morning infers a sun-riser, a lottery winner infers a lottery win-maker, and a watch infers a watch-maker. Which is why I wonder whether the presentation of the argument here is inaccurate, or whether I an forced to consider that seemingly intelligent and thoughtful people are rendered a bit stupid when it comes to Apologetics.
Linda
Why would a supernatural being's existence be contingent on natural causes? I can't derive that it's not, but I don't see it as a live possibility, sorry.
If there is no evidence for or against the existence of such a being, agnosticism would be the default position. Agnositicm would not be the default position regarding the odds of the physical constants having the values they do. Those odds can be calculed, and physcists have done so.
Causally, no. Epistemically, yes.
That would require argument or evidence. You may claim that it's possible God's existence is contingent on a life-permitting universe, but you have no argument to believe why that should be so, nor any evidence. I could say it's just as likely God's existence is not contingent on anythying physical. Back to agnosticism.
You only have to establish God as a live possibility for the FT argument to work (ignoring the multiverse issue). Even if you think the odds of God existing are 1 in a thousand, you'll get confirmation, because the existence of life is "crushingly improbable". So, what is your evidence that God likely does not exist?
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
1 and 5 seem reasonable statements to me. I don't think that the 2, 3, and 4 are necessary, but I don't spend enough time discussing it with proponents to determine if they are a typical part of the argument. The last is the contentious one. It seems to me that it's rational to accept as a hypothesis that the universe might have been designed. But while it's a reasonable conjecture based on the apparently fine-tuning, other explanations are possible so it isn't a particularly convincing argument.
Are people trying to convince you that you should also believe in a god because of this argument, or are they simply using it to establish that their belief in god is rational?
It's usually the atheist complaining that the theist has no empirical evidence.
At any rate, I think the rule is more like this: The other person must use empirically verifiable evidence to convince me I'm wrong.
I can use pure conjecture to support my beliefs and won't change my mind unless I am presented with empirically verificable evidence against it.
I can use pure conjecture to support my beliefs and won't change my mind unless I am presented with empirically verificable evidence against it.
I wouldn't say it is a problem. It's another option to expain the apparent fine-tuning of the Universe. Both are conjecture at this point. Personally, I see no reason to prefer one of those unsupported conjectures above the other.
As you noted, it's pretty well established by physicists such as Hawking, Penrose and others that the universe appears to be very finely tuned to support interesting structures such as stars and planets which are considered to be necessary pre-cursors to the existance of life. It is whether or not the fine-tuning supports the existance of god that is debated.
Yes, those are all good questions. Personally, while I think that the fine-tuning of our universe does provide support for the idea of a designer, it does not support any particular conception of god other than that of designer.
Beth
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
First of all, what's so important about life?
Last edited:
Cynic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,329
Douglas Adams once suggested that marvelling over the apparently fine-tuned universe was akin to being surprised that the shape of water in a mud puddle should have taken on the contours of the hole in which it lies. Or perhaps he merely quoted someone else's notion to that effect -- can't remember.
Whatever the probability of the universe supporting life is, one thing is clear: the probability of life being compatible with the universe that spawned it is 100%. But what of these probabilities? If there's one thing in life that never ceases to annoy me, it's unwarranted assumption. And that happens as often in disciplines like physics (with regard to interpretation) and cosmology (with regard to cosmology) as it does with religion.
For instance, this particular incarnation of the fine-tuning argument demands that there are many possibilities and suggests that the particular form appropriate for life is "unlikely". First off, when evaluating possibilities, it's useful to eliminate impossibilities. The fine-tuning arguments make the completely unwarranted assumption that the current state of physical reality isn't necessary, that other options are in fact possible.
Yet where in our experience do we see anything play out that way? If I toss a ball in the air, it comes down -- every time. There are no known examples of an effect without a cause, so why would we suddenly assume that the current circumstances of the universe are divorced circumstances that provoked them? That would beg an uncaused cause, which is an inherently religious proposition given the overwhelming evidence that all things have causes (or reasons) without known exception.
How people get from "if everything has a cause than there must be a first cause" is simply beyond my understanding. The universe -- defined here as "all of existence", not "all we can see", is, logically, eternal. No doubt there is a reason for that too.
But given how much we don't understand, to include time itself, people posing arguments such as the fine-tuning argument are playing fast and loose with even what we do understand.
Whatever the probability of the universe supporting life is, one thing is clear: the probability of life being compatible with the universe that spawned it is 100%. But what of these probabilities? If there's one thing in life that never ceases to annoy me, it's unwarranted assumption. And that happens as often in disciplines like physics (with regard to interpretation) and cosmology (with regard to cosmology) as it does with religion.
For instance, this particular incarnation of the fine-tuning argument demands that there are many possibilities and suggests that the particular form appropriate for life is "unlikely". First off, when evaluating possibilities, it's useful to eliminate impossibilities. The fine-tuning arguments make the completely unwarranted assumption that the current state of physical reality isn't necessary, that other options are in fact possible.
Yet where in our experience do we see anything play out that way? If I toss a ball in the air, it comes down -- every time. There are no known examples of an effect without a cause, so why would we suddenly assume that the current circumstances of the universe are divorced circumstances that provoked them? That would beg an uncaused cause, which is an inherently religious proposition given the overwhelming evidence that all things have causes (or reasons) without known exception.
How people get from "if everything has a cause than there must be a first cause" is simply beyond my understanding. The universe -- defined here as "all of existence", not "all we can see", is, logically, eternal. No doubt there is a reason for that too.
But given how much we don't understand, to include time itself, people posing arguments such as the fine-tuning argument are playing fast and loose with even what we do understand.
"Appears to be very finely tuned" is a meaningless statement. All observations have this appearance until we begin to form explanations which constrain these observations. One could just as easily state (as was done) that the movement of the lights in the night sky were apparently fine-tuned and therefore supported the idea of a designer, given that a variety of seemingly unconstrained constants governed those movements. It turned out that designer does not have a capricious interest in humans, though.
"Designer" seems to (deliberately) carry the baggage of consciousness/choice. If it does not support any other conception of God than 'provides constraint', why not simply get rid of that baggage? I realize that would make it unpalatable to Apologists, but at least it would be deliberately honest.
Linda
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Did he crib that from How to Lie with Mathematics?
It's an important point. We're talking about changes of many orders of magnitude, roughly the difference between the speed of light and the speed of a turtle.
In my book, that's not fine tuning. But I guess the "whacking great change argument" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
"Appears to be very finely tuned" is a meaningless statement. All observations have this appearance until we begin to form explanations which constrain these observations. One could just as easily state (as was done) that the movement of the lights in the night sky were apparently fine-tuned and therefore supported the idea of a designer, given that a variety of seemingly unconstrained constants governed those movements. It turned out that designer does not have a capricious interest in humans, though.
I'll have to disagree with you here. Not all observations have this appearance. Some things appear to be random and chaotic. At any rate, I don't see any physicists arguing against the idea that our universe is finely tuned to produce interesting structures. Many variables in their models have to be specified precisely for the models to produce anything like our universe. The debate is only about why the constants that their models require have to be constrained so tightly.
I agree that designer carries the baggage of consciousness/choice. I see it as the point of the argument, not a deliberate dishonesty. There are several model parameters that require very precise values imposed by the designers for no reason other than to make it match our perceived reality. I don't see it as an unreasonable conjecture that the reality they are modeling was also specified by an conscious designer. Of course, there are other competing hypotheses. At this point, all we can say is we don't know why the model parameters must have the values they have, we only know that such constrainsts are necessary.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
And again, if a god of some description fine-tuned the Universe for life, why is approximately 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of it instantly lethal?
The fine-tuning argument tells us two things about God:
(a) He's incompetent.
(b) He's either a bacterium or a beetle.
The fine-tuning argument tells us two things about God:
(a) He's incompetent.
(b) He's either a bacterium or a beetle.
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
Just get lucky? The problem is that this is a problem for no one who does not begin with a teleological bent. You must first assume that life -- and particularly our life -- was the point all along. There is no reason to assume that.
It's the same issue as trying to work out the enormously ridiculous odds that may right hand is in exactly the position that it is right now. What are the odds? I mean, it's astronomically outrageously unlikely that might right hand would be in the exact coordinates that it is. There is only a problem if one assumes that it should be there in the first place.
When you can't even see your teleological biases you end up spending an enormous amount of time on this non-issue.
Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
I will look for it. I am quite certain the Bible makes references to hell being ''a a dark dungeon,'' - (and also one which is in the center of the earth) - i used to be a devoute christian see.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
It's a bit hard to come up with a universe where the majority of it can support life. I supose you could somehow set up an intial big bang to generate heavy elements and then play with the cosmological constant and gravity to produce a sort of air filled universe but there would be a shortage of energy sources and larger lifeforms would tend to risk explodeing or turning collapseing into black holes.
You also have the problem that you risk generateing Gödel lambdadust and all the closed timelike curves issues.
The fact is the shear size of the universe means that if you want to build a life friendly universe there is little reason to make more than a small percentage of it life friendly. If you are going to use stars to generate your heavy elements it's probably a good idea to have enough space between them to avoid them knocking planets out of orbit too often. If you are going to use them as your main energy source then it makes sense to avoid too high a level of gravity so that they last long enough to do something useful. These factors will yes tend to produce a univese with a lot of empty space.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
It's not a non issue. "Why is the universe like it is?" is a valid question. "just because" which is what the "due to chance" argument boils down to is not a very useful answer. One attack line is to introduce the concept of more universes (sure it was very unlikely but with so many universes it was bound to happen sooner or later). Another attack line is to introduce a designer. Another is to argue that there is some law which forces physical constants to be the way they are (which then follows on by trying to work out why that should be the case).
Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." This passage relates to Jesus' judgment of all the world.
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." The reference to fire is repeated three more times in the passage for emphasis.
Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." This is a plea described as coming from an inhabitant of Hell.
Revelation 20:13-15: "...hell delivered up the dead which were in them...And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Revelation 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Brimstone is sulphur. In order for sulphur to form a lake, it must be molten. Thus, its temperature must be at or below 444.6 °C or 832 °F.
Hell is a place of instability. It is described as a lake of fire. Hell is a place where every moment is lived in uncertainty (Matthew 5:21-23; Revelation 20:15)
Hell is a pit of darkness; totally devoid of light. It is pitch black in hell; there's nothing to distract people from their suffering, sorrow, fears, insecurities, and instability. (2 Peter 3-5)
Hell is a place of dissatisfaction. Yeshua described it as a fire; a fiery furnace. It may be a literal fire that creates a physical sensation of burning or just an overwhelming yearning for God, for love, for joy, for peace, for life that will never be. (Matthew 5:22; Matt 13:42 and 50; Matt 18:8-9; Matt 25:41; Mark 9:43, 47-48)
Hell is a place of eternal separation from God. Each person who goes to hell will be separated forever from the source of life, the heart of love, the very One for Whom they were created. Hell is a place where your soul will be destroyed (Matthew 7:23 and 10:27-29).
Where is Hell?
Matthew 11:23 - "Hades" - Strong's Concordance #86
(NIV) - "you will go down to [the depths]"
(KJV) - "shalt be brought down to [Hell]"
(NLT) - "you will be brought down to [the place of the dead]"
Luke 16:23 - "Hades" - Strong's Concordance #86
(NIV) - "In [Hell], where he was in torment, he looked up..."
(KJV) - "And in [Hell] he lift up his eyes, being in torments,"
(NLT) - "And his soul went to [the place of the dead],"
II Peter 2:4 - "Tartaros" - Strong's Concordance #5020
(NIV) - "but sent them to [Hell], putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;"
(KJV) - "but cast them down into [Hell],"
(NLT) - "He threw them into [Hell], in gloomy caves and darkness until judgment day"
Amos 9:2 - "Sheol" - Strong's Concordance #7585
(NIV) - "Though they dig down to the depths of [the grave],"
(KJV) - "Though they dig into [Hell],"
(NLT) - "Even if they dig down to [the place of the dead], I will reach down and pull them up."
Numbers 16:31-33 - "Sheol" - Strong's Concordance #7585
(NIV) - "the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, ...They went down alive into [the grave],"
(KJV) - "the ground clave asunder that was under them. And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, ...They, ...went down alive into the [pit],"
(NLT) - "the ground suddenly split open beneath them. The earth opened up and swallowed the men, ...So they went down alive into [the grave],"
here is a proof
At this time, He also created the original earth. This should not surprise ... Fourth, God created hell for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41 states, ...
Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." This passage relates to Jesus' judgment of all the world.
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." The reference to fire is repeated three more times in the passage for emphasis.
Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." This is a plea described as coming from an inhabitant of Hell.
Revelation 20:13-15: "...hell delivered up the dead which were in them...And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Revelation 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Brimstone is sulphur. In order for sulphur to form a lake, it must be molten. Thus, its temperature must be at or below 444.6 °C or 832 °F.
Hell is a place of instability. It is described as a lake of fire. Hell is a place where every moment is lived in uncertainty (Matthew 5:21-23; Revelation 20:15)
Hell is a pit of darkness; totally devoid of light. It is pitch black in hell; there's nothing to distract people from their suffering, sorrow, fears, insecurities, and instability. (2 Peter 3-5)
Hell is a place of dissatisfaction. Yeshua described it as a fire; a fiery furnace. It may be a literal fire that creates a physical sensation of burning or just an overwhelming yearning for God, for love, for joy, for peace, for life that will never be. (Matthew 5:22; Matt 13:42 and 50; Matt 18:8-9; Matt 25:41; Mark 9:43, 47-48)
Hell is a place of eternal separation from God. Each person who goes to hell will be separated forever from the source of life, the heart of love, the very One for Whom they were created. Hell is a place where your soul will be destroyed (Matthew 7:23 and 10:27-29).
Where is Hell?
Matthew 11:23 - "Hades" - Strong's Concordance #86
(NIV) - "you will go down to [the depths]"
(KJV) - "shalt be brought down to [Hell]"
(NLT) - "you will be brought down to [the place of the dead]"
Luke 16:23 - "Hades" - Strong's Concordance #86
(NIV) - "In [Hell], where he was in torment, he looked up..."
(KJV) - "And in [Hell] he lift up his eyes, being in torments,"
(NLT) - "And his soul went to [the place of the dead],"
II Peter 2:4 - "Tartaros" - Strong's Concordance #5020
(NIV) - "but sent them to [Hell], putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;"
(KJV) - "but cast them down into [Hell],"
(NLT) - "He threw them into [Hell], in gloomy caves and darkness until judgment day"
Amos 9:2 - "Sheol" - Strong's Concordance #7585
(NIV) - "Though they dig down to the depths of [the grave],"
(KJV) - "Though they dig into [Hell],"
(NLT) - "Even if they dig down to [the place of the dead], I will reach down and pull them up."
Numbers 16:31-33 - "Sheol" - Strong's Concordance #7585
(NIV) - "the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, ...They went down alive into [the grave],"
(KJV) - "the ground clave asunder that was under them. And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, ...They, ...went down alive into the [pit],"
(NLT) - "the ground suddenly split open beneath them. The earth opened up and swallowed the men, ...So they went down alive into [the grave],"
here is a proof
At this time, He also created the original earth. This should not surprise ... Fourth, God created hell for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41 states, ...
Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
Here is a reference to God creating hell (which seems to be earth) for his angels originally
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2009/08/gods-3-tests-for-his-angels.html
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2009/08/gods-3-tests-for-his-angels.html
Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
You do realize the Anthropic Principle was created from the soil of physics?
edit> So asking how physics has something to say about the AP is simply retarded.
Last edited:
Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
According to Frank J Tipler, the ultimate goal of the Anthropic arguement is to proove the strong arguement.
yy2bggggs
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 2,435
Why not? Isn't it a tad bit arbitrary to just pound the property of "just so" into the being? And if you do that, what then would be wrong of pounding the property of "just so" into the FT parameters? What does such a god actually give you from an explanatory framework?
Remind people who haven't been exposed to your line of thinking that by "agnostic" you mean 50:50 odds, please.
Given this, let's carry this out to its logical conclusion. This would imply that 50% of all beings you can imagine for which you have no evidence for, or against, would actually exist. First off, it's nowhere near obvious that this is true. Second, if it were, then what a crowded universe we must live in.
Nobody knows the odds, because nobody knows what the distribution of possibilities are. Nevertheless, whatever those odds are, they could be interpreted as the odds that the universe is such that we would be here. But they can only be interpreted that way if you take the laws of nature as a fixed given, in which case, to get God, you should go through the odds that the universe is such that God would be here.
This "agnostic" position you're proposing is poor epistemology. If the FT argument for God works, this implies that the process by which it works is a sound process. And if that's the case, then anything with long odds could be explained by dreaming up any entity that causes it--after all, entities for which I have no evidence one way or the other are 50% likely, right?
The absurdity of the alternative is the suggestion that 50% of all entities we can dream up, for which we have no evidence for one way or the other, should exist.
...
Why should the multiverse issue be an issue at all? Would it be an issue if you simply hadn't thought about it?
If not, why would thinking up the possibility of a multiverse change the odds? If so, then how are you sure there aren't a number of other things you haven't thought about?
Unless, of course, we're talking about this God, in which case we're supposed to apply special pleading and say that this probability should be 50% because we don't know either way.
Silly Malerin. You need evidence that things do exist. And the more extraordinary the thing, the more extraordinary evidence you need.
Essentially, you don't have this evidence. You're trying to get God to be viable via this other, unrelated argument--this notion that the default assumption should be 50% probability. And that argument doesn't fly.
Last edited: