Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[marplots]

And Ashley is proud of her relationship with the gunman. She's sad that I can't understand her love is true and the gunman is worthy of her adoration. She doesn't get why I think it's not real love, and more like battered wife or Stockholm syndrome.

The man with a gun is a cop and has authority over the situation. She wonders why you don't "get with the program."

As far as the carrot and stick storyline goes, I have to admit that it has been effective enough to influence human behavior over many centuries. I'd like to think, as a species, we are capable of outgrowing it.

 

[tsig]

Screw the theology and biology! Except, then God would've created the de Havilland Dragon Rapide, the world's most perfect airplane, from the whole cloth. Er, and plywood and tubing. In 1:48 scale, but still with scale fabric, the warp and woof of which you could only see with a microscope.

In the Real World, the deeper you look the more you realize that, if there were a Designer, He set a few rules of how matter and energy work at the Big Bang, then let it all unfold. That doesn't explain the origin of life, but neither does Darwin. And it supports the Deists.

As for that, I suggest the studies of Stuart Kauffmann regarding self-organization. You might realize that life, rather than improbable, is pretty much inevitable, given the right (but not highly-constrained) circumstances. Or, as my wife said when I told of driving through the smoke of an oil refinery and said it smelled like French fries, "There are only so many ways carbon atoms can hook up with other atoms."

Lacking her knowledge of chemistry, it took me a moment to say, "There are probably hundreds of ways for carbon atoms to hook up with other atoms."

"Thousands, but that's 'only so many.'"

Sometimes you need to look at the Big Picture.

Once some carbon atoms manage to hook up in a way that allows them to replicate similar arrangements of carbon atoms, the rest is history.

 

[dlorde]

Well, this is unusual. I find myself with nothing left to argue about with Trent and Nihilianth.

Is that good or bad?

 

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not sure...achieving a better understanding of each other's views and being able to agree to disagree amicably is a feeling I so rarely experience on discussion boards...good, I think.

 

[Trent Wray]

Well, this is unusual. I find myself with nothing left to argue about with Trent and Nihilianth.

I'm not sure...achieving a better understanding of each other's views and being able to agree to disagree amicably is a feeling I so rarely experience on discussion boards...good, I think.

Yes it's almost one of those things that exists as an expectation in the realms of pure fantasy or fai.... meh, I won't say it .... lol ......

Anyway I hope the waiter that is behind Ashley and George brought some good pizza and beer .....

Later sir ...

 

[Nihilianth]

You make a lot of good points here .... and I'll try to respond succinctly

* I like that you point out the POV that someone might claim, "I would never bow down to such a tyrant," but at some point, would most likely break given the right amount of torment and torture, etc. So, talking one way about the man with the gun when you're not facing the end of an eternal barrel are two different things. I used to compare this "character trait" in a person, however, to Nazi Germany. Saying, "I would never commit such evil," is one thing, but some how millions went along with their countries agendas when facing the end of the gun, whilst many more stood in defiance of that gun and paid a horrific price.

However, even then ... those scenarios are not eternal. They all have an "end" in sight. At some point, the victim will die. Eternal torment at the hands of a god is another matter alltogether. So perhaps my comparisons to what someone would do IRL as opposed to how they might react when face to face with eternal consequences (in my mind) were unfair

* I think what the Xtian tries to do with the conflicting traits of "God" (i.e. loving yet wrathful) is try to reconcile them with the Father Figure concept. A parent can be loving, yet heavy handed, etc and so forth. It still has it's obvious holes (like starving children, suffering and misery even on the "children of God", etc and so forth), but it's one view used to rationalize contradictory behavior and is part of the considerable mental effort

* One thing to remember, about that final scenario you give of Ashley and the man with the gun .... she is assuming about things he has said or not said, and so are you. Neither of you has seen the man with the gun, nor heard a peep from him. You are going off of her non-evidenced based accounts and anecdotes, fears and thoughts, wants and opinions ... when she could easily be delusional. If you think the man with the gun has threatened you directly, then you would need to provide evidence, the same as she would if she thinks he has revealed to her all the things she speaks of. Otherwise, you are both still assuming a lot about someone you have neither heard from, nor seen.

Which would beg to question, of course, "if there IS someone there, why are they just standing there and not clearing things up? Why aren't they speaking up and saying, "I am a waiter, not a man with a gun," or "I have a gun and you're gonna die if you don't love me, like Ashley says," etc and so forth?

There are lots of reasons. Perhaps there is no one there at all. Perhaps there is a waiter, but the waiter is unable to speak ... or ignorant of what is taking place. Perhaps (the extreme arguments) "the whole scenario is god" or it's taking place in the mind of god or we're heads in jars, etc and so forth.

Regardless, the ultimate bottom line is that anything you or Ashely assume, without evidence, doesn't show WHAT could possibly be behind you. A man with a gun, a waiter, nothing, or something else. Your attitudes towards each other, and your assumptions, only count about as much as your opinions concerning idle chatter regarding Atlantis .

Dude .... it's been interesting hashing this out. I've actually learned a few things .

WOW! That was an amazing post! No way could I have put it better myself, and explained perfectly well what I was trying to get across! You fit my concept that "there is no way to know the mind of God," my ideas of what I "know" about God (only things I do know about him, is that he is omnipotent, loving, and has a reason to do everything he has done,") and yet still accept the fact that he may not be there at all. (My "knowledge" of God stems from a past life experience of nearly losing a loved one and the story he told, and faith in God itself.)

Anyway, I had a great time with it as well. Pretty amazing when 99% of all threads end with nothing accomplished, and yet, there are gems such as these, no matter how rare!

 

[Nihilianth]

Well, this is unusual. I find myself with nothing left to argue about with Trent and Nihilianth.

 

[Nihilianth]

Yes it's almost one of those things that exists as an expectation in the realms of pure fantasy or fai.... meh, I won't say it .... lol ......

Anyway I hope the waiter that is behind Ashley and George brought some good pizza and beer .....

Later sir ...

Ah! I am having pizza and beer this Friday for a big going away party for a damned close friend of mine. You should come over!

Or, I suppose it is safe to actually sit down with some pizza and beer in this thread, without worrying about a terrible party foul, and unwashable stains on my good shirt during the course of a discussion about Design vs. Omnipotence on an Internet forum. Is it ok to be confused by this strange phenomenon. I believe it is like trying to divide by 0 or something, only good comes from it, rather than absolute destruction....

 

[Trent Wray]

WOW! That was an amazing post! No way could I have put it better myself, and explained perfectly well what I was trying to get across! You fit my concept that "there is no way to know the mind of God," my ideas of what I "know" about God (only things I do know about him, is that he is omnipotent, loving, and has a reason to do everything he has done,") and yet still accept the fact that he may not be there at all. (My "knowledge" of God stems from a past life experience of nearly losing a loved one and the story he told, and faith in God itself.)

Anyway, I had a great time with it as well. Pretty amazing when 99% of all threads end with nothing accomplished, and yet, there are gems such as these, no matter how rare!

Well ... thank you for calling it a "gem" ... I appreciate it .

And I was kidding about the pizza .... I'm actually on a diet .... lol

Later to you as well

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

This argument isn't against ID/God. I'm not presupposing anything about the workings of an omniscient mind (except that it's impossible to determine if an unfathomable being is good or evil). I'm pointing out that theology and science don't mix.

An interesting conundrum: Do you reject the validity of using logic to discount that which science does not apply to?

Many people point to fine-tuning as evidence for their version of God. It isn't.

True, but your OP doesn't support that claim. That god did something that doesn't require omnipotence is in no way evidence that god is not omnipotent. You ignore that there may be an infinite number of other things done that do require omnipotence.

In your 'strong rebuttal' you create an imaginary scenario where the actions of your conception of God make perfect sense to you. What is it about this point that makes people think that their imaginations constitute a rebuttal to the observation that the only conceivable universe in which life as we know it could exist without supernatural intervention is one just like or very, very close to the one we find ourselves in?

To your unfounded observation that "the only conceivable universe in which life as we know it could exist without supernatural intervention is one just like or very, very close to the one we find ourselves in", imagination is the perfect rebuttal.

 

[punshhh]

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.

I have read the thread and it has stated the pro's and con's quite well.

I have sympathy with the OP, as when I was younger I passed through a period of contemplating this question. However I have left this far behind now and have reconciled any possible conflict between the arguments from both sides.

A good theory for the atheist position is that chaos theory can explain our presence.

On the other side chaos theory sounds like something God might have dreampt up and our importance in Gods plan is not very high, hence the apparent lack of imagination on Gods part.

The deist is only required to suggest that an omnipotent God may have for some unfathomable reason created a universe of atoms ordered by chaos theory and the laws of physics. The apparent importance of humanity in this scheme would most likely be due to the fact that it is humanity asking the question and humanity may not in reality occupy such an exalted position.

Then there is the argument made by Nihilianth which is also a good response. However is susceptible to the dreaded GWIMW.

There are also arguments considering infinity, not to mention the mystery of existence itself.

 

[Nihilianth]

Quick question: What is GWIMW? Does it have to do with a moving goalpost in reference to an omnipotent God? Because I do have to admit that my arguments do border on moving goalposts, in connection to the level of involvement of God, and more advanced scientific findings.

 

[Mister Agenda]

GWIMW=God works in mysterious ways

 

[Mister Agenda]

An interesting conundrum: Do you reject the validity of using logic to discount that which science does not apply to?

Would you give an example of using logic to discount that which science does not apply to, please?

True, but your OP doesn't support that claim. That god did something that doesn't require omnipotence is in no way evidence that god is not omnipotent. You ignore that there may be an infinite number of other things done that do require omnipotence.

My OP merely points out that the situation we find ourselves does not support the claim that life and our universe are the artifacts of an omnipotent creator, and are just as consistent with a less-than-omnipotent creator or no creator at all. I have never stated that it is evidence that god is not omnipotent, merely that an omnipotent god isn't required as an explanation.

Could you give an example of one of the infinite number of other things done that did require omnipotence that I'm ignoring?

To your unfounded observation that "the only conceivable universe in which life as we know it could exist without supernatural intervention is one just like or very, very close to the one we find ourselves in", imagination is the perfect rebuttal.

So there is a conceivable universe that you're aware of that is not very similar to this one where life as we know it could arise naturally? I'm familiar with the idea that a universe entirely lacking the weak force could conceivably nurture some form of life, but I had the impression that it would not be life as we know it.

And imagination in itself is never a rebuttal. Does anyone know if there is a formal name for the fallacy of 'argument from completely imaginary entities or situations'?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Would you give an example of using logic to discount that which science does not apply to, please?

As you pointed out, science and theology don't mix, so just about any argument based on a scientific discipline and which uses standard logical conventions would not apply to god.

My OP merely points out that the situation we find ourselves does not support the claim that life and our universe are the artifacts of an omnipotent creator, and are just as consistent with a less-than-omnipotent creator or no creator at all. I have never stated that it is evidence that god is not omnipotent, merely that an omnipotent god isn't required as an explanation.

Could you give an example of one of the infinite number of other things done that did require omnipotence that I'm ignoring?

Per my hypothetical point, if we discover a portion of the universe where the mental imaginings of resident creatures are immediately converted into reality, this power may be presumed to be of a source that is beyond the physics of our universe.

So there is a conceivable universe that you're aware of that is not very similar to this one where life as we know it could arise naturally? I'm familiar with the idea that a universe entirely lacking the weak force could conceivably nurture some form of life, but I had the impression that it would not be life as we know it.

Yes, I can conceive of a universe quite different and yet the creatures there are sentient, though not necessarily humanoid.

And imagination in itself is never a rebuttal. Does anyone know if there is a formal name for the fallacy of 'argument from completely imaginary entities or situations'?

I don't know that I would call it a "fallacy", but I would call such as rebuttal a "thought experiment".

 

[Nihilianth]

GWIMW=God works in mysterious ways

ah, thanks. In that case, I can see where you would think my postings have bordered on "GWIMW." But not quite. I just don't think that God "works in mysterious ways," any more than pet owners do in the viewpoint of pets. In both cases, the superior being has good reasons that the inferior beings just don't understand.

In any case, this thread has come to an amicable end, and I am responding to this with fear of re-sparking this thread.

 

[Mister Agenda]

As you pointed out, science and theology don't mix, so just about any argument based on a scientific discipline and which uses standard logical conventions would not apply to god.

I'm still a little confused on this point, but I guess that's the nature of the subject matter. Please note, I'm making an observation about what the fine-tuning argument does and does not imply, not an independent argument against the existence of God.

Per my hypothetical point, if we discover a portion of the universe where the mental imaginings of resident creatures are immediately converted into reality, this power may be presumed to be of a source that is beyond the physics of our universe.

That would be a reasonable hypothesis, should that event occur. In the meantime, though....

Yes, I can conceive of a universe quite different and yet the creatures there are sentient, though not necessarily humanoid.

I think we are talking past each other. By 'life as we know it', I mean carbon-based biological life similar to that found on earth. I agree that there are possible alternate arrangements of physical laws that don't preclude some form of life, even sapient life, but I wouldn't call such life, 'life as we know it'. Such beings would probably find out universe quickly fatal if they were somehow transported here. Even in this case, we are talking about life arising naturally in a universe with physical laws that allow it. I can conceive of a universe very different from ours with life just like ours, in violation of that universe's physical laws, which would then make extra-universal intervention a reasonable hypothesis.

I don't know that I would call it a "fallacy", but I would call such as rebuttal a "thought experiment".

I wouldn't call it a rebuttal at all. As I've noted elsewhere, if 'thought experiments' count as rebuttals and are not fallacious, and I start using them, I will never lose an argument again, the worst I can suffer is a draw if my opponent catches on that they can make stuff up as an objection, too.

Thought experiments can be useful. In themselves, they are not arguments. You can 'what if' anything, even something formally valid, but you can't get from a 'what if' to an 'is' without doing work in between. You can't just stop at 'what if' and legitimately claim you've supported your position.

Now under the right circumstances, analogy is a valid form of argument. It can be used to illustrate the logical consequences of my position, and then I would have to address that to hold up my end. The only thing I have to address with 'but what if we someday discover something that requires omnipotence to explain?' is to note that if that ever happens, you'll have a point. And maybe throw a 'what if someday we dicover that nothing requires omnipotence?' back at you.