Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[randman]

and not what you'd expect if they were created by a being of infinite ability, intelligence and imagination who was also creating the environment in which the life forms had to survive

.

This isn't what you yourself would expect from the hypothetical God of your imagination, but not everyone else. It's probably a good thing God doesn't meet your and man's vision of what He should be like.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This isn't what you yourself would expect from the hypothetical God of your imagination, but not everyone else.

Everyone else expects God to be lazy and have a serious lack of imagination?

It's probably a good thing God doesn't meet your and man's vision of what He should be like.

Why?

 

[tsig]

New here....couple of main points.

1. Fine tuning is a scientific concept and theory. I think IDers use it to say intelligence exists that is involved in ordering the universe and I think the science suggests that they are right.

2. On the other point that somehow this is throwing the God of Abraham under the bus, you make a very common error and interject a theological argument into the science. You presume to know what God would be like as a Creator and to understand His purposes and think, well, He wouldn't do it that way. He would surely not use the same DNA, or another one evolutionists often come up is that He would surely design things more perfectly. Of course, if He did that we would never have something called human beings but that doesn't occur to them.

Strangely, those critical of Intelligent Design theorists and others often come up with theological arguments as one of their basic evidences and yet constantly say IDers and creationists are inserting theology into science, but really they are generally sticking to the data and science in their explanations of things.

On the similar DNA and why God would do that, there are numerous reasons why that we could come up. One could question why animals all have similar physical properties. I mean why shouldn't some creatures be made up of light, and what's with having the whole universe run on the same math. Couldn't God in His infinite creativity had some worlds, for example, like the Lewis tales where you go into a closet and come into a different world. I mean it's like He's just not creative. Why do we always have to travel through space. Couldn't he do better than that? Even Star Trek creators imagined being able to teleport around, and the author of Dune had that spice thing that enabled one to transport to the other side of the galaxy.

Wouldn't that be cool?

Is the argument? I just don't think God exists because He didn't design the universe as wild as we would?

And yet, the universe is pretty far out. We are learning more mysteries all the time.

On DNA, perhaps He used DNA across the board so we'd better be able to understand it and progress in our science? Or, He just felt like it? Or, when He created, that aspect of creating embedded itself into the universe and so the process itself dictates the similarity.

Could be a bunch of things. Certainly the Bible says information outside of space-time or a layman's concept of "physical" is the origin of all things. The Logos or Word lies at the heart and origin and root of anything. Maybe information itself needs to be connected together throughout the universe and this is why math works so well, and this is why life has a similar information sharing system?

Since we're humans looking at the universe the universe looks human to us.

 

[randman]

good point

 

[Dancing David]

So which is more accurate Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think "fine tuning" is the tail wagging the dog. We have what can result from what is. We do not have what is resulting from what we have.

e.g., we don't have cars because we have all these highways.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, you were waaay too hard on me, but don't worry I forgive you.

Thanks. Seriously. There was no phone contact with Misawa yesterday and I was worried about someone. It's a poor excuse for being mean, I guess I'm not too mature to lash out at bystanders when I'm upset about something else. Snarky is normal for me, harsh is not.

There you go, that wasn't so hard. I'll ignore the bluster that follows.

We can combine that with the fact that you nevertheless feel confident in stating that there aren't any humans on the sun. Or if not stating it directly, then strongly implying it by using it as a basis for concluding that a fine-tuner God implies a lack of omnipotence.

Yes, I am extremely confident that random assertions based on no evidence at all are highly likely to be untrue.

This confidence despite the lack of direct demonstration is presumably based on something.

It's based on the track record of made-up things based on no evidence turning out to be real.

It could be an argument from ignorance, "we don't know if there are humans there, therefore there aren't."

The argument from ignorance would be that we don't know there are not humans there, therefore there are. It's not an argument from ignorance to point out that asserting the existence of the unknown without evidence is unjustified.

It could be divine revelation, "God told me there are humans there."

I think in this context you meant to say "God told me there are no humans there."

Or, and this is the one my money's on, it could be a prediction based on science, "The complex molecules which make up humans have diddly-squat chance of existing at the temperatures on the surface of the sun.", (plus many,many other lines of science-based reasoning which lead to the same conclusion.)

That is certainly a good reason to want evidence before taking the idea of humans living on the sun as more than a fantasy.

However scientific reasoning has a built in preference for parsimony, no unnecessary entities and all that. If your reasoning is conducted on that basis it's unsurprising that a 'minimalist' God is going to be implied. Generally no God required at all, but if you have to have one then it isn't going to be omnipotent.

It's not just science that requires parsimony, it is reason itself. Given free reign to multiply entities unnecessarily, we'd never get anywhere. I could stop an argument about the God of Abraham by asking 'how do you know the God of Abraham wasn't really Coyote playing an elaborate joke on the Hebrews?' If you have to take those kinds of objections seriously, there's nothing anyone can really argue about. 'Why were you late to work?' 'I had to save the world by having sex with a stranger' 'I find that very hard to accept.' 'Can you demonstrate it isn't true?' 'Er, no.' 'Well then, how about a little less criticism and a little more gratitude?'

You made up an argument and then attacked it. Please take your own advice.

If you won't make any arguments of your own, you can hardly blame me for taking up your slack.

I suspect you're right.

I suspect I know the reason why. This pattern of implying you have something substantial to contribute but never getting around to it is a very common one.

 

[Mister Agenda]

New here....couple of main points.

1. Fine tuning is a scientific concept and theory. I think IDers use it to say intelligence exists that is involved in ordering the universe and I think the science suggests that they are right.

I'd hardly call it a theory. The weak anthropic principle is a tautology: if our environment didn't allow our existence, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. Fine Tuning is just a question: if the physical constants were much different, we wouldn't be here, I wonder if they could have been different? Fine-tuning is a speculation, not a theory.

2. On the other point that somehow this is throwing the God of Abraham under the bus, you make a very common error and interject a theological argument into the science. You presume to know what God would be like as a Creator and to understand His purposes and think, well, He wouldn't do it that way. He would surely not use the same DNA, or another one evolutionists often come up is that He would surely design things more perfectly. Of course, if He did that we would never have something called human beings but that doesn't occur to them.

I only presume that an omnipotent God wouldn't require a fine-tuned universe to fulfill his purposes. An omnipotent God wouldn't have to conserve any effort or stick to a particular way of doing things. If you think my point is invalid, you have to make the case that a universe that allows life is equally or more consistent with an omnipotent God than a more limited universe-starter.

Strangely, those critical of Intelligent Design theorists and others often come up with theological arguments as one of their basic evidences and yet constantly say IDers and creationists are inserting theology into science, but really they are generally sticking to the data and science in their explanations of things.

I'm not following you. Would you give an example, please?

On the similar DNA and why God would do that, there are numerous reasons why that we could come up. One could question why animals all have similar physical properties. I mean why shouldn't some creatures be made up of light, and what's with having the whole universe run on the same math. Couldn't God in His infinite creativity had some worlds, for example, like the Lewis tales where you go into a closet and come into a different world. I mean it's like He's just not creative. Why do we always have to travel through space. Couldn't he do better than that? Even Star Trek creators imagined being able to teleport around, and the author of Dune had that spice thing that enabled one to transport to the other side of the galaxy. Wouldn't that be cool?

Is the argument? I just don't think God exists because He didn't design the universe as wild as we would?

And yet, the universe is pretty far out. We are learning more mysteries all the time.

On DNA, perhaps He used DNA across the board so we'd better be able to understand it and progress in our science? Or, He just felt like it? Or, when He created, that aspect of creating embedded itself into the universe and so the process itself dictates the similarity.

I realize I made a mistake. Thanks for making me think it through. I thought my argument applied to Intelligent Design, but it really only applies to Creationism. One can wonder how the God of Abraham can match up with a God who guides evolution instead of creating organisms out of whole cloth in less than a week as depicted in Genesis, but the conservation of DNA objection applies to special creation, not intelligent design. In intelligent design, organisms really are related by descent, so no need to wonder at the similarity of DNA. In special creation, organisms are made to appear as if they have common descent when they actually don't--it's not that they would be 'neater' if they were more different, it's that it's actually deceptive to make them appear related by common descent if they're really not.

Could be a bunch of things. Certainly the Bible says information outside of space-time or a layman's concept of "physical" is the origin of all things. The Logos or Word lies at the heart and origin and root of anything. Maybe information itself needs to be connected together throughout the universe and this is why math works so well, and this is why life has a similar information sharing system?

You can 'maybe' anything. Speculation is great, it can stretch our minds and may lead us down new avenues of inquiry. It doesn't actually answer any questions on its own, though.

 

[Mister Agenda]

.

This isn't what you yourself would expect from the hypothetical God of your imagination, but not everyone else. It's probably a good thing God doesn't meet your and man's vision of what He should be like.

If you can't even make any reasonable extrapolations about God, why do you believe? It sounds like you believe in this ineffable thing you can't really say anything about, because we don't really know anything about it. Are you using the word 'God' as a placeholder for whatever started the universe or do you believe in the Biblical God who created the universe and the earth pretty much as it is now in six days and rested on the seventh?

 

[randman]

I'd hardly call it a theory. The weak anthropic principle is a tautology: if our environment didn't allow our existence, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. Fine Tuning is just a question: if the physical constants were much different, we wouldn't be here, I wonder if they could have been different? Fine-tuning is a speculation, not a theory

It doesn't sound like you really understand it or at least not some versions of fine-tuning.

An omnipotent God wouldn't have to conserve any effort or stick to a particular way of doing things.

Shallow thinking on your part. Get back to me when you want to take the subject seriously on that point.

I'm not following you. Would you give an example, please?

Your post can be my example. You interjected your assumption on what God should be like in a discussion on fine tuning or evolution. Take this.

it's that it's actually deceptive to make them appear related by common descent if they're really not.

Deceptive? So God is answerable to you now. He's trying to deceive you if special creation is true? This is an idiotic and childish reasoning. If you don't believe in special creation, Ok, but to interject something about how because it seems to you one way, God really was thinking of mankind in the past 100 years and set it up that way to deceive this generation?

I suppose it was God's fault men thought the world was flat, and by golly He deceived us. He must not be there because no God would make us think the world was flat by things looking flat to us at the time.

Can't you see that as just fallacious logic and interjecting your own theology into a science discussion?

 

[randman]

If you can't even make any reasonable extrapolations about God, why do you believe? It sounds like you believe in this ineffable thing you can't really say anything about, because we don't really know anything about it. Are you using the word 'God' as a placeholder for whatever started the universe or do you believe in the Biblical God who created the universe and the earth pretty much as it is now in six days and rested on the seventh?

I can. Maybe you could too? But that besides the point. Why do so many atheists and evos bring God into the discussion when the topic is something on science?

 

[Trent Wray]

So which is more accurate Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter?

It's a tough call. The actors in both use horses so differently ...

 

[Trent Wray]

Nope. They're working to create something which fits into a world with specific features. They're not creating the environment into which it has to fit, too.



No, but I think that the number of different designs of life forms are often very similar to each other. This is exactly what you'd expect if they descended from a common ancestor and not what you'd expect if they were created by a being of infinite ability, intelligence and imagination who was also creating the environment in which the life forms had to survive.



No it doesn't.

So you think the environment is unoriginal and boring?

Can you name a story which you ever thought showed amazing creativity? Did it utilize concepts of life/death/time/growth/decay/evolution on some scale/etc and so forth? In other words ----- a few of the things which exist?

My point, is that to claim the universe is amazing, but if there is a designer he/she/it must be an idiot .... doesn't follow imo. It's a subjective opinion that doesn't make sense to me.

It makes sense in this light:

If someone brings me chocolate cake, and I say, "damn ... that's absolutely amazing and delicious!" ... and then someone else tells me that they filled it with roasted cockroaches, and that Justin Bieber baked it .... I would be disappointed because I don't like the idea of eating cockroaches, and I can't stand Justin Bieber. It's totally subjective, and changes my view on the cake because of who/what the cake is linked to.

I think it's more about disappointment with the idea of what you think the designer should be like, even though you appreciate and find the design beautiful and amazing. And this is irregardless of the fact we're talking about a fictional being.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I can. Maybe you could too? But that besides the point. Why do so many atheists and evos bring God into the discussion when the topic is something on science?

Re-read the OP. This topic is about God.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So you think the environment is unoriginal and boring?

No.

Can you name a story which you ever thought showed amazing creativity? Did it utilize concepts of life/death/time/growth/decay/evolution on some scale/etc and so forth? In other words ----- a few of the things which exist?

Why?

My point, is that to claim the universe is amazing, but if there is a designer he/she/it must be an idiot .... doesn't follow imo. It's a subjective opinion that doesn't make sense to me.

Since that's not what I've said and isn't a position that I hold, what you think of that position is irrelevant.

I think it's more about disappointment with the idea of what you think the designer should be like, even though you appreciate and find the design beautiful and amazing.

And this is a perfect example of the pitfalls of building straw men arguments.

 

[dlorde]

The problem with what you are saying and many others making such arguments is you have a limited theological understanding and so start out with a straw man.

I was being facetious

Why do you assume the universe progresses in such a linear fashion?

Where did I say that? (not that it doesn't)

Certainly something as basic as local realism is violated in quantum mechanics. What else will be?

You tell me - do bear in mind that 'realism' as used by physicists is not the same as the 'realism' of metaphysics.

A strong theological argument from the Bible can be made that the universe once exists without death. Since we know from science, and really also strongly implied in the Bible, that the universe is all of space-time, not just space travelling in time, there was a universe with certain principles absent or latent, which we see today, such as death.

Could you rephrase that? I'm having difficulty parsing the meaning.

With the interjection of death into the program so to speak, then all of space-time ran with death as a part of that, which is one reason death is mentioned in the Bible as "the last enemy" to be destroyed.

Nope, sorry. AIUI, death is the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism - what has that to do with cosmology?

I could elaborate more on the theology but suffice to say, some objections based on theology are not science-based and are generally based on ignorance of biblical theology in the first place, or a fairly simplistic and juvenile understanding of scripture.

Oh indeed; no doubt... Objections to what?

 

[dlorde]

Then what you're describing isn't the same thing as what people who argue for "Intelligent Design" are describing.

Well no, that wasn't my intent. I was just suggesting that the OP argument was weak because an intelligent designer could simply design the initial conditions and let it run.

 

[Trent Wray]

No.



Why?



Since that's not what I've said and isn't a position that I hold, what you think of that position is irrelevant.



And this is a perfect example of the pitfalls of building straw men arguments.

Ooops. My mistake. I thought you perhaps wanted to have a conversation.

 

[John Jones]

Ooops. My mistake. I thought you perhaps wanted to have a conversation.

His telling you that you have built a strawman argument isn't part of a conversation?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ooops. My mistake. I thought you perhaps wanted to have a conversation.

I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation about positions I hold and statements I have made. I see no advantage to anybody for me to defend positions I do not hold and statements I have not made.

If you want to have a conversation with me about my position, then a good place to start would be to address my position.