Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[Mister Agenda]

In a discussion with a deist on another forum, I posted this:

Only a godless universe must have conditions favorable to life for life to exist. Out of all conceivable universes we might find ourselves in, one in which we can arise naturally least requires a God as an explanation for our existence.

I'm under no illusions that this thought is particularly original, and I've come close to it before myself in different words, like noting that an omnipotent God could have humans living happily on the surface of the sun. It strikes me that a 'fine-tuner' God strongly implies a lack of omnipotence.

I can't think of a good counter to that. It's like when creationists explain that it just makes sense to give similar organisms similar DNA. It doesn't make sense if the designer has no limit in creativity or resources and can make things so with a thought and no effort. So intelligent design also winds up being an argument against an omnipotent God.

It seems to me that people who use the fine-tuning and intelligent design arguments are throwing the God of Abraham under the bus.

 

[KingMerv00]

In a discussion with a deist on another forum, I posted this:

Only a godless universe must have conditions favorable to life for life to exist. Out of all conceivable universes we might find ourselves in, one in which we can arise naturally least requires a God as an explanation for our existence.

I'm under no illusions that this thought is particularly original, and I've come close to it before myself in different words, like noting that an omnipotent God could have humans living happily on the surface of the sun. It strikes me that a 'fine-tuner' God strongly implies a lack of omnipotence.

I can't think of a good counter to that. It's like when creationists explain that it just makes sense to give similar organisms similar DNA. It doesn't make sense if the designer has no limit in creativity or resources and can make things so with a thought and no effort. So intelligent design also winds up being an argument against an omnipotent God.

It seems to me that people who use the fine-tuning and intelligent design arguments are throwing the God of Abraham under the bus.

Maybe God is obsessed with details and the universe is part of his model airplane collection.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Sort of like a sculptor who wants to be so realistic that people will mistake his work for the real thing?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's like when creationists explain that it just makes sense to give similar organisms similar DNA. It doesn't make sense if the designer has no limit in creativity or resources and can make things so with a thought and no effort.

Or, indeed, why so many animals are so similar in so many ways. I mean, the vast majority of mammals are tubes with a mouth at one end and an anus at the other, with 4 limbs attached to the ribcage in the same way in the same place, a very similar face arranged in the same way attached to the head which is attached to the body via a neck, and with a tail. And it's not even just the mammals, you could apply more or less the same description to most birds and reptiles, too.

It's an old saying, but it's true - if God really did create all life on Earth, then the best you can say about him is that he's lazy and has a distinct lack of imagination.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Or, indeed, why so many animals are so similar in so many ways. I mean, the vast majority of mammals are tubes with a mouth at one end and an anus at the other, with 4 limbs attached to the ribcage in the same way in the same place, a very similar face arranged in the same way attached to the head which is attached to the body via a neck, and with a tail. And it's not even just the mammals, you could apply more or less the same description to most birds and reptiles, too.

The straightforward response to this is that there's at least as much similarity among all modern cars. Sometimes you stick with a basic design because it's a good design.
And sure, there are non-cars... but there are non-tetrapods, too.

 

[sphenisc]

..

I'm under no illusions that this thought is particularly original, and I've come close to it before myself in different words, like noting that an omnipotent God could have humans living happily on the surface of the sun. It strikes me that a 'fine-tuner' God strongly implies a lack of omnipotence.

I can't think of a good counter to that..

Okay, please demonstrate that there are no humans living happily on the surface of the sun.

Or more generally, if you interpret observations on the basis of a scientific paradigm which assumes pragmatic naturalism, it's unsurprising if your conclusions are naturalistic.

 

[skoob]

The straightforward response to this is that there's at least as much similarity among all modern cars. Sometimes you stick with a basic design because it's a good design.

Right. If life on earth is the product of an intelligent designer it is not an omnipotent one, but a designer who is forced to operate within a narrow set of constraints -- just as for car designers. Car designers couldn't design an arbitrary car and just make it work. An omnipotent creator could make any design work.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The straightforward response to this is that there's at least as much similarity among all modern cars.

I think most believers would like to credit God with a little more imagination than a car designer. And I think it's also fair to say that car designers have to work within the laws of physics - God created the laws of physics (and biology, too, for that matter), and could have made anything he wanted successful.

Sometimes you stick with a basic design because it's a good design.

As I said - lazy and a lack of imagination.

 

[dlorde]

I dunno, but it doesn't seem like much of an argument really - God may just have created a really dense, hot concentration of energy with a few simple rules and let a big bang proceed from there, just for the hell of it craic.

When I play Conway's Game of Life, I set up random starting conditions and let it rip. Sometimes it all fizzles out to nothing, or becomes stuck in a static or repetitive state, but sometimes really interesting stuff happens...

 

[Trent Wray]

It seems to me that people who use the fine-tuning and intelligent design arguments are throwing the God of Abraham under the bus.

I agree. Good point.

I actually think that believers who won't stand next to their Abrahamic God and say, "yeah ... my god kills babies, and watches people suffer, and gets angry. I don't agree with him or like it. I think it's evil, and I think what he does is evil 99% of the time. But he still exists. I won't do everything I think he wants, but still ...." are throwing him under the bus as well.

I think most believers would like to credit God with a little more imagination than a car designer. And I think it's also fair to say that car designers have to work within the laws of physics - God created the laws of physics (and biology, too, for that matter), and could have made anything he wanted successful.



As I said - lazy and a lack of imagination.

So car designers are lazy and have a lack of imagination?

Do you find the universe boring and unoriginal?

I don't understand this argument either .... which basically says, that if god is anything like us then he/she/it sucks. Why? Do we suck? Because in the same breath, the atheist will usually talk about how awe inspiring the universe is and how amazing physics are and how fascinating creatures are .... but if god is anything like us, then he must suck. I don't get that. It's contradictory reasoning to dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

If there is no evidence for intelligent design, then fine. But to make offensive remarks and put downs about a non existent entity ... the believers have therefore just as much right to defend the same non-existent entity against remarks like that.

"The tea cup doesn't exist."

"Yes it does".

"No it doesn't exist. And it's stupid."

Really?

 

[westprog]

I agree. Good point.

I actually think that believers who won't stand next to their Abrahamic God and say, "yeah ... my god kills babies, and watches people suffer, and gets angry. I don't agree with him or like it. I think it's evil, and I think what he does is evil 99% of the time. But he still exists. I won't do everything I think he wants, but still ...." are throwing him under the bus as well.

So car designers are lazy and have a lack of imagination?

Do you find the universe boring and unoriginal?

I don't understand this argument either .... which basically says, that if god is anything like us then he/she/it sucks. Why? Do we suck? Because in the same breath, the atheist will usually talk about how awe inspiring the universe is and how amazing physics are and how fascinating creatures are .... but if god is anything like us, then he must suck. I don't get that. It's contradictory reasoning to dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

If there is no evidence for intelligent design, then fine. But to make offensive remarks and put downs about a non existent entity ... the believers have therefore just as much right to defend the same non-existent entity against remarks like that.

"The tea cup doesn't exist."

"Yes it does".

"No it doesn't exist. And it's stupid."

Really?

There's an assumption that firstly, the wishes and motivations of a hypothetical omnipotent being can be readily surmised, and secondly that we understand the universe enough to be certain that those wishes have not been met.

It's arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, from people who don't believe in angels in the first place.

 

[Bikewer]

One has to wonder if life on Earth was planned in some way, why it was felt necessary to nearly wipe the whole thing out not once but several times.
The big extinction at the end of the Permian wiped out some 90% of all species alive at the time, according to the paleontologists... Similar results from other extinctions.

Gould pointed out frequently that "our" presence on Earth is the result of unending quirky contingencies.... Hell of a way to plan.

 

[sphenisc]

One has to wonder if life on Earth was planned in some way, why it was felt necessary to nearly wipe the whole thing out not once but several times.
The big extinction at the end of the Permian wiped out some 90% of all species alive at the time, according to the paleontologists... Similar results from other extinctions.

Ever played Jenga?

 

[KingMerv00]

Ever played Jenga?

Not with human life hanging in the balance. I'm not a bastard.

 

[dlorde]

Gould pointed out frequently that "our" presence on Earth is the result of unending quirky contingencies.... Hell of a way to plan.

Yeah - if we're made in His image, I can only surmise that the universe blew up in His face because it was over-ambitious, poorly planned, underquoted, with insufficient contingency, and inferior materials, ran badly over time and budget, and wasn't properly finished... He rested on Sunday, but Friday was clearly a bodge job after a morning texting & browsing heaven-net, followed by a long liquid lunch -> platypus

 

[Mister Agenda]

Okay, please demonstrate that there are no humans living happily on the surface of the sun.

It is sad that you are reduced to an argument from ignorance concerning people who live on the sun. It was an unwillingness to keep doing this kind of thing to my brain that led me away from theism.

Or more generally, if you interpret observations on the basis of a scientific paradigm which assumes pragmatic naturalism, it's unsurprising if your conclusions are naturalistic.

Can you point to one of the observations do you think I'm misinterpreting?

 

[tsig]

Ever played Jenga?

Your god seems limited by the human brain.

 

[Mister Agenda]

One has to wonder if life on Earth was planned in some way, why it was felt necessary to nearly wipe the whole thing out not once but several times.
The big extinction at the end of the Permian wiped out some 90% of all species alive at the time, according to the paleontologists... Similar results from other extinctions.

Gould pointed out frequently that "our" presence on Earth is the result of unending quirky contingencies.... Hell of a way to plan.

I read recently that multicellular life as we know it is pretty much impossible without mitochondria, a part of our cells with bacterial DNA that probably started off as an obligate intracellular parasite like rikettsia that became a symbiotic suppler of ATP. In the whole history of earth this only happened once. If not for that symbiosis, multicellular organisms above the complexity of jellyfish might have shown up much later or not at all. It's all very Rube Goldberg.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Ever played Jenga?

So you believe God is a being that desires entertainment and enjoys playing games? A God that seeks to avoid boredom? I have to say that such a being is more plausible than a noncontingent being that is perfect and therefore requires nothing; given the world we find ourselves in.

 

[Trent Wray]

Not with human life hanging in the balance. I'm not a bastard.

Have you ever eaten meat and enjoyed it?

There's an assumption that firstly, the wishes and motivations of a hypothetical omnipotent being can be readily surmised, and secondly that we understand the universe enough to be certain that those wishes have not been met.

It's arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, from people who don't believe in angels in the first place.

No .... it's more like arguing whether those angels are stupid and ugly, and claiming that they are because they look and act exactly like us.

But if you remove the angels from the equation, then all of a sudden human life is valuable and existence is a wonder of science, etc and so forth.

It's a contradiction.

I can understand why having "big hopes" for a birthday present that sits wrapped awaiting for you to open it ... and then opening it to find something disappointing about it.

But if you claim that iPods are amazing technology, for example ... and then God appears and says "here I am" and you find him listening to an iPod ... how can you claim he's an idiot if he's doing the same thing as you are? Why wouldn't he enjoy an iPod?

Just because you have bigger hopes for a god that doesn't meet them, isn't evidence the god doesn't exist.

"God is lame and I'm awesome" isn't evidence. And it further doesn't make sense to me to value life and existence on one hand, but then look in a mirror and devalue it. Especially if you don't believe the mirror exists in the first place.

Not liking what you are claiming doesn't exist in the first place isn't evidence. It's just an opinion. And the believers can argue back that god is great and good and awesome, and they can't be proven wrong. It's just a subjective aspect of a fictional focus. Your opinion of the ficiton is just as valid as theirs.

See my point?