Thread: Question for Atheists.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'd argue that their being fixed doesn't explain the problem. If they're fixed, why are they fixed in such an incredible combination? The only difference I see here is that in this circumstance, a designer is the only reasonable conclusion.

In my first post I also mentioned that theoretical physicists had some fundamental variables they couldn't fix. I don't know what they were or what the ranges were, but that's what physics says. I remember also a mention of '10^500 different possibilities' or something, so the variability of the constants (lol) does seem to have scientific basis. We probably need a theory of everything first, but it's worth mentioning.

I'd also point to the Krikkit analogy. Those guys could have said, 'the question is meaningless. How do we know there's more than one temperature possible, or more than atmospheric constitution possible?'. It turns out the best thing to do is permit some variation.

I think complexity is an inherently difficult thing. There's a few things which point to this. Firstly: complexity only ever seems to arise in one way. For example, there's only one combination of particles in our universe which allows for complexity (proton, neutron, electron, photon), but there's a large number of particles. There's a large number of elements, but only one combination allows for complex structures (in particular, carbon is essential to organic chemistry, which is the only way complex molecules can be constructed naturally; except maybe silicon, but that is doubtful anyway). Secondly: just play Conway's game of life. Fiddle around with the rules, and see how many of them create complex worlds. It's a tiny fraction of the total number of combinations; in fact I'm not sure if anybody's ever found a set of rules except the standard ones, and that set only creates very 'simple' complexity with no capability for information modification and replication (and hence evolution).

You're right that life may have all sorts of weird forms and extremophiles do point to that, but they're still actually pretty limited in scope, and still; like I mentioned before, we don't actually need to go into this level of detail, because you can do the argument by brute force. Analogous to counting stars with no planets, you just count the universes with no hope of life at all, and they're still overwhelming.

You're probably right that we don't have all the pieces necessary for completely formal fine-tuning yet, but I reckon that what we do know is a huge pointer, and so to argue for the converse would be the more untenable position here.

In very simple terms, I find the emergence of complexity and life in our universe incredible, I don't see any reason at all ours should be the only universe, and my naturalistic tendencies lead me to the only conclusion I find reasonable. As I've explained there's more to it than that, but that alone I find pretty powerful.

Well put, Xei. And I'll add that I spent a day or two playing with Conway's game of life lol.

And gnome - I have to run now...but I'll be back later. Those are great questions - I don't remember for sure but I think Xei's first post covered at least part of them. I'll answer later with my take on them if you still would like to hear it...

Hmm. Your reasoning is the most compelling version of this argument I've heard so far, so thanks! I'm going to have to think about this for a bit. I feel like there should be an analogous analogy to your krikkit one - in a way, the krikkit world is an example of how you could be right, not an argument for why you are. I'd like (and need) to find an equivalent analogy so that I can at least prove that I could conceivably be correct.

*Edit*
That sounds great, Aquinas! I'd love to hear from you. I'm working until like 5 tomorrow but I'll be around in the evening.

Hah, I'm glad to hear you're considering it, your opinion means a lot to me (and was I mistaken in thinking you'd kind of popped out of nowhere? I swear I haven't seen you post for ages).

Aquinas; yeah, ain't floaters cool? I've got a new laptop and can't remember which program I used to have to run it; do you have one installed? I used to have a really good one where you could change the rules and stuff.

Haha, you're right. I've been lurking a bit lately, but I haven't been posting. I'm going to be part of a student-organized course on lucid dreaming next semester, so I'm trying to get back into the swing of things in time for that. Also, I've been showing my girlfriend the ropes and she's had a few lucids so we read the forums before bed occasionally.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Everything is always spinning around this and I feel annoying always bringing it up. I don't see how there could be a scientific way of defining the argument of fine tuning, without puting forth a serious working model of consciousness as a property of reality. How else do you take fine tuning "seriously", scientifically speaking. Either way, you're going to have a tough time. This is the question about life the universe and everything after all, is it not?

This is what I was basically trying to convey. Indeed, consciousness has an important role in this matter. We can't just think we can create some "formal" fine tuning theory of everything in the universe while ignoring how it relates to consciousness. Once we can do that, I think, it makes it all much more realistic.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

I don't think there are examples of things "going wrong". I can't think of any...can you?

Well I think that it's common for an atheist to argue about things such as disasters, mutations, diseases, violence, ignorance, (etc.) for something to refute the existence of a (loving and omniscient) God and/or a perfectly created universe. It's not that I agree with this, of course not, but I do agree with your fundamental point; that the universe must be guided by a higher intelligence. But I think it is simply the method of reaching these conclusions that may be more open to introducing limitations. Like Bonsay and myself said about probability and similar examples. Although it does help get your point across, it can be misinterpreted that this is really about chance and hypothetical comparisons, rather than an intrinsic fact (which it obviously is, to me anyway).

As with the neutrino example, I would argue that for all things of that nature, we likely just haven't discovered their true purpose yet. In the same way we previously didn't know the purposes for other particles, which we now know more about..

Yeah, and it all comes down to analyzing how (the) judgment is made. If anything I think we learn the most out of realizing that. We can only perceive as far as the reasoning permits.

And I am not arguing that humans are the supreme beings in the universe or the "best things that can happen", just an integral part of it. Let's say, for instance, we were observing this universe from some outside source, and only plants existed on the earth. Just plants and water. I would still be arguing for a designer based on the fact that those plants were able to exist with the incredible odds stacked against them.. The argument can most definitely be for life itself, not human life.

Indeed. Please correct me if I'm wrong in what follows your points, because hopefully I'll be explaining it a little further.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Hey guys,

Welcome back, even if you were lurking.

1) The idea that fundamental factors such as the weights of particles or the strengths of forces could be different seems arbitrary to me. We have no idea why things are the way they are, and for all we know these factors could be inextricably related in such a way that asking 'what if they were different' is simply nonsensical. Where does the idea that fundamental characteristics of the universe are somehow arbitrary or could have been different come from, and is there any support for it?

2) If we accept that these crucial characteristics could have been different - hell, if they had been chosen at random as the universe began, why is it a problem that things could have been different? Surely the argument isn't that 'our' version of the universe, non-collapsed and friendly to carbon life forms, is somehow better than any other option? Even if there had been a 99.99999 percent chance of the big bang just imploding, so what? If it had, we wouldn't be here. The fact that we can observe that we are here is a tautology, and has nothing to do with statistics or probability. It seems like rolling a billion-sided die and then arguing that since it was so unlikely to land on 1308943, it must have been fine-tuned to do so.

You have some good points but it's funny, because despite all that you just said, the 'fine tuning' argument can still apply! I don't think Aquinas is saying that this universe was a one-in-a billion and therefore special; not at all. The depth of the argument is indicating that there is no use actually worrying about hypothetical possibilities, but on the contrary, having analyzed the intricacies of fundamental laws and measurements that already exist, it is easy to say that the universe could not be any other way. I.e. There was no "chance" that the universe just somehow "banged" into existence the way it did; it is all supposed to happen and everything that exists is intrinsically unified. It is safe to say that therefore, there is a higher-intelligence of the universe that has directed it towards these circumstances. I very much cannot come to an agreement with a cosmic dice roller.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's a lot more reasonable that actually all of the faces of the die came up (remembering that we have absolutely no idea if the die was actually thrown once and not many more times), and that we found ourselves on the special one because of the anthropic principle; you can only observe universes in which it's possible to observe.

But all this dice-throwing is just speculation; 'chance' has no actual reality. Since when are there possibilities outside a universe? Outside a multi-verse? There's no sense in just adding universes to help us understand this, it doesn't get us anywhere. I say there is no dice and no "start" of the universe. There is only an endless sea of potential, and that is intelligent. Universes, galaxies expand, suns form, suns explode, planets emerge from the dust, life emerges, life evolves. There is constant flux and if something is under the right conditions, it will change, otherwise it won't. Everything is constantly growing, and generally bettering itself for more complex or higher purposes.

You can say that there may have been other universes that were created to not support life, but it is both unfalsifiable and pointless. We can only deal with our own universe; what is currently real and true, and it is safe to say that this universe is optimized for everything to be the way it is, including life, otherwise it simply wouldn't be.

People sometimes use the anthropic principle to explain away fine tuning, saying 'oh, but we couldn't be in a universe which didn't allow for observation, so our universe had to be like this if we were to observe it.

This is totally flawed. It assumes that observers are a necessity; of course they aren't. Reality (note: 'reality', not just 'universe') does not care if it creates observers. It has no incentive to do so.

I think what this is getting at is that life is a significant part of the universe. Observation just happens to be a key significance to life. And this is actually just stating the obvious. It really doesn't matter how many planets have living organisms on them or not, it just matters that there is an important capacity to be alive and function, and it already exists.

Note that this argument does not presuppose what form the life might take. Bonsay mentioned Douglas Adam's famous puddle story, but failed to realise that it is in totally the wrong context. With the puddle analogy, you conceptualise a number of life-sustaining, but varying, planets, and then consider some life form, say, a human creationist. The creationist says, 'isn't it marvellous how our planet is covered in oxygen, when that's exactly what I need to breathe?'. This is obviously backwards because actually the creationist evolved (for once) around the existing environment, not vice versa; and the guys on Zog are all saying, 'what a coincidence the atmosphere has so much hydrogen sulphide in it!', etcetera, and there's really nothing special at all about the atmosphere.

The real importance of behind all this phenomena being appreciated by each life-form, is not because it might seem special or merely coincidental, but because it is already perfectly beneficial and optimal; because the universe is intelligent enough to form those circumstances. You don't see humans evolving spontaneously on Venus and complaining about the temperature, because that cannot occur.

Aquinas, there are a seemingly unlimited amount of ways you could have been born. Not you as a person of course, because that's the variable. Just your place in the world. Any of the millions of sperm cells could have been the one to make it to the egg. And there's the factor of time to decide who was even in the running to begin with. And then there are outside forces that interacted with you while you were forming, and once you were born. There are almost limitless things that could have kept you from being exactly who you are right now. Gross as it will sound, you were one jerk off from being erased from existence before you were even conceived. So does that mean everyone on earth conspired to make sure the exact events were in place for you to be who you are? No. They went about their daily lives and everything just ended up making you. And the same is true for every single human. And with minor adjustments, all sexually reproducing species, all of which had an effect on you that somehow, some way created you. So why couldn't you take that one step further back and say the entire universe only randomly let you come about? Why is there a line separating what can be random and what MUST be chosen.

And for how you said the possibility is "statistically zero", the chances of something happening or only truly zero if it is impossible, and with something involving the universe, not even just post big bang, just everything in reality, there is really nothing that was impossible. Meaning everything had a chance. Everything! If you were to consider a universe existing devoid of life, it was just chance. But if something with odds against it occurs, it was chosen to happen. How does that make sense. Either you aren't explaining yourself well, or fine tuning doesn't make sense. Because you're saying that this universe must have been made by a creator because of all the other possibilities, but at the same time pushing that there WERE no other possibilities. Explain the inconsistency.

And I CLEARLY pointed out what I wanted you to explain MULTIPLE times. I wanted you to explain WHY LIFE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO EXIST? HOW HAVE YOU MISSED THAT SO MANY FREAKING TIMES? SERIOUSLY? STOP FUCKING IGNORING THE QUESTION! I'VE MADE THIS CLEAR MORE TIMES THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IF YOU JUST DIDN'T NOTICE THE QUESTION!

And in response to you "-opinion
-opinion
-opinion" bullshit, I said they were logical, and based on history, projected future, and pure ans simple logic. And what do you mean "why would we need to travel faster than light"? You specifically talked about travel. and "saving the galaxy". Or can we do that from our backyards? So yes they ARE opinions, and were never intended as anything more, but they make a hell lot more sense than humans being some superhero of the cosmos.

I'm gonna ignore all 13 pages because I'm too lazy to read them all, and answer OP's question as best I can.

I never believed in god. It always struck me as silly. Either way, whether or not a god exists has no impact on my life at all - as far as i can tell, if god exists then he's perfectly fine with me not acknowledging him at all.

Something to lighten the mood a bit.

I think the way to go is agnosticism(Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I'm a man of faith and spirituality not a man of science to say for a start. I believe that perhaps there is higher power(s) like some ("energy") force that we cannot understand or explain, ourselves as god, single god(as in christianity or islam) or what ever. But I found that I can't be sure of anything. In fact NO one can be sure of anything. So explaining 'supernatural stuff', life itself, using the word GOD is just one easy explanation for this. I like spiritual people and people who believe that anything is possible, people with open minds. Being a atheist means you don't believe in any higher power and that, for me, makes you as stupid as people who believe only one deity is in charge of every single thing going on here. Though as I said, I can't say any of you are wrong and I am right. But I can say, you, as a single deity worshiper or an atheist you believe only in that and nothing else. That makes you pretty close minded.

So my question for every 'single deity worshiper' or atheist is. How the .... are you so sure in your beliefs that you count everything else wrong. How can you do that, when in fact no single person in this world can explain what the f*ck is going on here. Why ? No one can answer this three letter question. NO one.

I believe the people who have come closest to the answers we are looking for are buddhists as I believe the answers lie within.

Agnosticism is not a belief system. If you believe in a higher power, you're a theist. If you don't, you're atheist. Agnosticism is a measure of how sure you are in your beliefs. The four extremes are as follows:

Agnostic atheist - doesn't believe in a higher power, doesn't deny the possibility
Agnostic theist - believes in higher power, acknowledges he can be wrong
Gnostic atheist - knows for a fact there is no higher power, denies all other possibilities
Gnostic thiest - absolutely convinced there is a higher power, denies all other possibilities

I'm an agnostic atheist. I certainly don't think there's a higher power, but as you've said, anything is possible. Trying to explain something away via a higher power, though, only leaves more questions than answers, and only muddies up the equation with a supernatural entity we cannot observe. I don't see a reason why one has to exist. We may not understand everything going on in our universe, but that isn't a reason to run off and believe in god.

Originally Posted by Mario92

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/3660/0036.gif

Something to lighten the mood a bit.

Yahtzee made comics back in 2004?

Lawdy.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Hey guys, I realize I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'm very interested in the fine-tuning argument. I do not understand it, it seems obviously invalid to me for two reasons and I would love to get some feedback as to why these are not problems.

1) The idea that fundamental factors such as the weights of particles or the strengths of forces could be different seems arbitrary to me. We have no idea why things are the way they are, and for all we know these factors could be inextricably related in such a way that asking 'what if they were different' is simply nonsensical. Where does the idea that fundamental characteristics of the universe are somehow arbitrary or could have been different come from, and is there any support for it?

2) If we accept that these crucial characteristics could have been different - hell, if they had been chosen at random as the universe began, why is it a problem that things could have been different? Surely the argument isn't that 'our' version of the universe, non-collapsed and friendly to carbon life forms, is somehow better than any other option? Even if there had been a 99.99999 percent chance of the big bang just imploding, so what? If it had, we wouldn't be here. The fact that we can observe that we are here is a tautology, and has nothing to do with statistics or probability. It seems like rolling a billion-sided die and then arguing that since it was so unlikely to land on 1308943, it must have been fine-tuned to do so.

I apologize if you've already addressed these issues Aquinas, I just wanted to pose them to you directly so that I can get a straight answer. It would be great if you could respond! Thanks!

Wanted to respond sooner but I just can't find the time now. I'll be on later tonight (a few hours) with my two cents, I apologize for taking so long. Just don't want anyone to think I've "given up" or was "trolling" lol.

Xei - I thought I still had it installed but I can't seem to find it. I know I could change the rules on mine too though - fun to try at least.. It's incredible the complexity that could stem from such a simple concept and rules.

Originally Posted by Dreamsun

So my question for every 'single deity worshiper' or atheist is. How the .... are you so sure in your beliefs that you count everything else wrong. How can you do that, when in fact no single person in this world can explain what the f*ck is going on here. Why ? No one can answer this three letter question. NO one.

I'm the same as Mario. I go with the most logical solution, meaning one that answers more questions than it raises and that doesn't completely contradict obvious fact. So don't get me wrong, I'm not a person who thinks the thing that sounds normal is definitely right. There are some points like aliens that I personally believe in. I think that It's more likely, based on written descriptions and human behavior, that most religions and/or ancient cultures had aliens involved, rather than just mass delusions and behavioral coincidence and/or actual deities. And I believe this because it seems to put down many questions, and raise relatively few that can't have sense made of them. Of course that discussion is for another time. Just saying my beliefs aren't totally black and white.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Hey guys, I realize I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'm very interested in the fine-tuning argument. I do not understand it, it seems obviously invalid to me for two reasons and I would love to get some feedback as to why these are not problems.

1) The idea that fundamental factors such as the weights of particles or the strengths of forces could be different seems arbitrary to me. We have no idea why things are the way they are, and for all we know these factors could be inextricably related in such a way that asking 'what if they were different' is simply nonsensical. Where does the idea that fundamental characteristics of the universe are somehow arbitrary or could have been different come from, and is there any support for it?

2) If we accept that these crucial characteristics could have been different - hell, if they had been chosen at random as the universe began, why is it a problem that things could have been different? Surely the argument isn't that 'our' version of the universe, non-collapsed and friendly to carbon life forms, is somehow better than any other option? Even if there had been a 99.99999 percent chance of the big bang just imploding, so what? If it had, we wouldn't be here. The fact that we can observe that we are here is a tautology, and has nothing to do with statistics or probability. It seems like rolling a billion-sided die and then arguing that since it was so unlikely to land on 1308943, it must have been fine-tuned to do so.

I apologize if you've already addressed these issues Aquinas, I just wanted to pose them to you directly so that I can get a straight answer. It would be great if you could respond! Thanks!

Again, sorry it took so long for a response. Let me know any objections that you have, again, I'd like for this to be a thought provoking discussion. It's possible you could come up with an argument to change my mind completely.

As for the first question, scientifically, there's no reason that the values for those constants couldn't be changed. But there is still obviously the possibility that they are fixed and unchangeable. But that has no significance to the fine tuning argument, and in fact, I would argue that if the variables were known to be fixed, it would even more strongly imply a designer. Let's say for example, that the strong nuclear force constant were fixed at it's current "value". We would then be forced to ask why it was fixed at that particular value, would we not? If it were the slightest percentage larger, be it two times more or ten times more, no hydrogen would form, the nuclei for most life essential elements would be unstable, and the chemistry for life would not be possible. If it were that much smaller, no elements more massive than hydrogen would form, again leaving life as impossible. On a scale of, let's say, 1 to 1000 (a much smaller scale than actually exists), the value of strong nuclear force would have to be fixed at 500 for life to exist. Anything less, no life, anything more, no life. It seems rather obvious to me that for a value to be fixed so precisely at the only number that would make life possible, would imply that that value was fixed there for a reason - for life as we know it to exist. And keep in mind that that's only one of the numerous constants needing to be precisely fixed for life.

I think what separates this from being just shear chance or just the number 1308943 on a dice roll, and leading into your next question - is the fact that lifeless universes are on either side of that "roll". It would be completely different if, say, we had a hundred sided dice and a 25 meant life could exist, a handful meant there were planets but no life, a handful were no life, a handful were only floating atoms, etc, etc. But the fact is that 1-49 are lifeless universes, 50 is a life-supporting universe, 51-100 are lifeless universes, and that's on an impossibly small scale. The best analogy I've seen that addresses your second question is that of surviving a 100 man firing squad execution unharmed (in this case, more appropriate would be a 1,000,000,000 man firing squad). Your objection to the fine tuning argument here is analogous to saying "of course the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn't be around to notice I'm still alive. A much better, more scientific and logical approach would be to consider why such an unlikely event occurred, would it not? Scientifically speaking, wouldn't a better explanation be required that offered more, well actually any, resolution?

So, like I said, that's a really good question. And I guess the best explanation I can give (other than the above), is based on statistics (which everyone here seems to despise lol) - but the problem with everyone's billion or trillion sided dice analogy is that in reality, it's more than a 10^1000 sided die. I will concede that there is a possibility that this world came to be solely by chance. But that chance is greater than 1 in 10^1000, in fact I would, and have, argued that it is one out of infinity.

Maybe if I add a little visual to those statistics, it will help people better understand my argument for statistics. Using only one of the numerous parameters, the ratio of electrons to protons, here is a visual for the odds of that specific value occurring and life existing (1 in 10^37):

"Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37." (Dr. Hugh Ross)

Now imagine doing that 30 times and picking the red one in all of them (any normal dime means a lifeless universe) - those are the odds of this universe occurring by chance.

Bro, on the issue of probability: it's like you went out and bought all the possible combinations of lottery tickets, then acted surprised when one of them turned out to be a winner. We don't know if there are other universes, and how many. Given enough of them, it really wouldn't be surprising if one or more were possible of supporting at least one form of life. In addition, we don't know if there even are such vast numbers of possible universes. Just because you conceive it, doesn't mean it can exist. I can conceive of a fish with the head of a lion and the neck of a giraffe. Doesn't mean it exists. We also don't have a scope of time outside our own universe. Universes may have been being created and destroyed for vast stretches of time that make the duration of our own universe look like the blink of an eye by compare. We don't know. Statistics, here, aren't your friend, and are a rather shoddy platform to build a case on.

Since when did the 'fine tuning implies multiverse' argument boil down to 'because we can conceive of other universes they must exist'? I'm not sure what your actual argument is. Are you just arguing against a designer..?

But that chance is greater than 1 in 10^1000, in fact I would, and have, argued that it is one out of infinity.

I'll scan your posts for your argument in a moment, but I'm not sure where this could come from.

None of the fundamental constants permit 0 variation for life-supporting universes; each has a range of possible values, no matter how small this range is. Therefore it seems that the ratio of life-supporting universes to all universes (and hence the probability of a randomly selected universe being life-supporting) would be non-zero.

I'm a mathematician so I have quite a good handle on what you can do with infinity.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

It seems rather obvious to me that for a value to be fixed so precisely at the only number that would make life possible, would imply that that value was fixed there for a reason - for life as we know it to exist. And keep in mind that that's only one of the numerous constants needing to be precisely fixed for life.

I'd like to bring up neutrinos again now. We don't know what they do or if they have a purpose. So why is that not the case on most things in the universe. Consider how many other things in the universe had such a small chance of occurring. You're still holding life at a value above all else by just assuming it must be what the universe was shaped for. You're assuming that the whole universe was made simply so we can exist. Let me give YOU a visual. Think of earth. Now think of how many beaches are on earth. Now think of how much sand is on those beaches. For every grain of sand it is assumed there are at least a million stars in the universe. Now thats JUST stars, that doesn't include planets, asteroids, comets, nebulae, and any other crazy shit shoved into the universe. And don't forget all the empty space. We are one planet. All of that exists just for our lowly little space rock?

"of course the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn't be around to notice I'm still alive".

You should have just stopped there because thats the only sentence that isn't based on wild assumptions.

A much better, more scientific and logical approach would be to consider why such an unlikely event occurred, would it not? Scientifically speaking, wouldn't a better explanation be required that offered more, well actually any, resolution?

The key word there is "better". Explain how a magic pixie fairy poofing everything into existence is in any way shape or form more scientific than chance. And a better solution is never required, it is only hoped for. If there is something that explains everything flawlessly, another solution is only needed if it is in fact better.

but the problem with everyone's billion or trillion sided dice analogy is that in reality, it's more than a 10^1000 sided die.

It's called a model. Models have limits, that's the whole point of them. The same logic used for a ten sided die transfers all the way up to a nearly infinite number of sides. And that logic is that bad odds does not and never has or will mean the same thing as impossible. Until you understand that you wont understand why we don't except fine tuning.

"Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37."

So of course if he does get the red one it means he's magic. Because that's what fine tuning suggests.

.

Originally Posted by Xedan

And I CLEARLY pointed out what I wanted you to explain MULTIPLE times. I wanted you to explain WHY LIFE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO EXIST? HOW HAVE YOU MISSED THAT SO MANY FREAKING TIMES? SERIOUSLY? STOP FUCKING IGNORING THE QUESTION! I'VE MADE THIS CLEAR MORE TIMES THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IF YOU JUST DIDN'T NOTICE THE QUESTION!

"No human could possibly know the answers to these questions"

"The fine tuning argument does not and cannot answer these questions. It can only serve to try and prove that there is some reason and purpose...whatever that may be."

Again, I have absolutely zero idea why life is something that needed to exist. No one could possibly know that at the current time. But again, citing the fallacy of an argument from ignorance, just because we don't know that answer doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. All the fine-tuning argument does is logically point to the existence of a designer, which it does successfully.

Originally Posted by Xedan

And for how you said the possibility is "statistically zero", the chances of something happening or only truly zero if it is impossible, and with something involving the universe, not even just post big bang, just everything in reality, there is really nothing that was impossible. Meaning everything had a chance. Everything! If you were to consider a universe existing devoid of life, it was just chance. But if something with odds against it occurs, it was chosen to happen. How does that make sense. Either you aren't explaining yourself well, or fine tuning doesn't make sense. Because you're saying that this universe must have been made by a creator because of all the other possibilities, but at the same time pushing that there WERE no other possibilities. Explain the inconsistency.

I've never said there were no possibilities of other universes, my argument is that there were infinite possibilities.. I'm saying this universe was created because it supported life (whether human life is the final step [I don't think so] or just one of a thousand - and that's how I am in no way arguing that man is the "superhero" of the cosmos. Man could be the 20th step in a one million step process, and I would still be having this same argument), not that there were no other possible universes..

You're right, this universe could have come solely by chance. But that chance is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000....you get the idea. And in my opinion, to be a single universe atheist, you have to accept those odds as your reality...which I refuse to do.

As for the one in a trillion baby argument, you make a good point - although it does nothing to refute the fine tuning argument, it's something I'll need to think about and consider. Although I would argue that we have no knowledge of anything to that level (likely impossible to know), so an argument can't be made one way or the other regarding it - and I think that would force an entirely different argument in itself (determinism comes to mind first). But nonetheless, I'm going to think about this and I thank you for that..it was very thought-provoking.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm a mathematician so I have quite a good handle on what you can do with infinity.

Can I ask what area your expertise is in?

Edit** Also, I'd like to hear your opinion on the cosmological constant, if you have one?

Originally Posted by Aquinas

"No human could possibly know the answers to these questions"

"The fine tuning argument does not and cannot answer these questions. It can only serve to try and prove that there is some reason and purpose...whatever that may be."

Again, I have absolutely zero idea why life is something that needed to exist. No one could possibly know that at the current time. But again, citing the fallacy of an argument from ignorance, just because we don't know that answer doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. All the fine-tuning argument does is logically point to the existence of a designer, which it does successfully.

Fine tuning is a theory to explain why life had to exist. And the reason life had to exist is because it was designed that way, as evidenced by fine tuning. So basically your problem only exists if the solution is true. Take out the stepping stone of the problem (which you clearly said you can't possibly know exists) and the theory is complete and total hogwash. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that?

Originally Posted by Aquinas

I've never said there were no possibilities of other universes, my argument is that there were infinite possibilities.. I'm saying this universe was created because it supported life (whether human life is the final step [I don't think so] or just one of a thousand - and that's how I am in no way arguing that man is the "superhero" of the cosmos. Man could be the 20th step in a one million step process, and I would still be having this same argument), not that there were no other possible universes..

If there are other universes it sort of crushes this theory, am I right?

You're right, this universe could have come solely by chance. But that chance is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000....you get the idea. And in my opinion, to be a single universe atheist, you have to accept those odds as your reality...which I refuse to do.

I think single universe atheists are a small minority of all atheists. And, I'm not trying to sound cutting or sarcastic at all, but can you please explain why you choose to believe it is more likely that there is an almighty being outside the confines of time and space than it is likely that there is more than one universe?

I'll scan your posts for your argument in a moment, but I'm not sure where this could come from.

None of the fundamental constants permit 0 variation for life-supporting universes; each has a range of possible values, no matter how small this range is. Therefore it seems that the ratio of life-supporting universes to all universes (and hence the probability of a randomly selected universe being life-supporting) would be non-zero.

I'm a mathematician so I have quite a good handle on what you can do with infinity.

Ah, I think I've read the paragraph in question. Basically you say that, as each variable could have any value from an infinite range, any finite range of values is infinitely small in comparison with the range.

Hm, well, there's a couple of problems with that.

The first is that an infinite range seems like a bit of an assumption. In maths making small deviations about a value is something you do all the time. This seems the most natural assumption to make.

But if we look at the Krikkit analogy... although permitting variations of the same order of magnitude of the variables would clearly be the right path to take, allowing infinite variation is on shaky ground. Do you assume the temperature of every planet has equal likelihood of being any temperature? Not only would this clearly be incorrect; it also causes several mathematical paradoxes (for example; what is the mean planet temperature?). I think it's clear that the best path to take is to assume that the value on your planet is roughly average, and that the probability of other temperatures is normally distributed around that average.

It's not clear how well the Krikkit analogy can be applied here, but anyway.

The second problem is rather more fundamental.

Let's do something trippy.

Let's say there's N fundamental variables, and they do permit infinite variation.

Our multiverse is then a very beautiful thing: it's basically a continuous N-dimensional 'hyperspace', with a 'distinct' universe at every coordinate; though, if we conceptualising moving along a line in this hyperspace, what we'd see is the universe 'morphing' in a continuous fashion, so the universes aren't distinct in a 'blocky' fashion.

We can construct a function from this space, ℝ^N, to {0, 1}, where 0 represents no life and 1 represents life (an even cooler thing to do would be to send it to ℕ, where the number represents the number of lifeforms, but we don't need to do that here).

It would be very hard to continue in this general fashion, so what I'm going to do now is consider the case where N = 2.

More specifically, let's say one variable is the amount of gas in the universe, G, and the other the volume of the universe, V.

Let's also say in our universe, life can only survive if the pressure is above 1/2 (so it doesn't explode) and below 2 (so it doesn't squish).

Our multiverse then looks like this,


[I was extremely lucky that somebody had drawn this graph for me, hah].

where every universe between the two lines maps to 1 and outside of the two lines maps to 0.

The point is this: say you're alive in universe (4,3). If you fix volume and vary gas, the probability of getting a universe with life is 1/infinity = 0. Similarly if you fix gas and vary volume, it's 0.

However, pictorially, it's very clear that the probability, if you're at a random place in the multiverse, of being in a life universe, is not 0. No matter how big a section of the multiverse you take (up to (5,5) or up to (500, 500)), the ratio of life to no life universes is a fixed ratio (I make it to be a 1/2 in fact).

Can I ask what area your expertise is in?

Edit** Also, I'd like to hear your opinion on the cosmological constant, if you have one?

I'm actually an undergrad at the moment, but I'm at a very good uni. We've been taught how to deal with infinity rigorously. When I've done my degree I want to go into theoretical neuroscience (to find out exactly what it is that makes something 'life').

As far as I understand it, the cosmological constant was a mistake introduced by Einstein into his theory of general relativity to try to allow for a static universe. Once evidence for the Big Bang was uncovered it was abandoned. Though, with the problem of dark energy nowadays, it's kind of creeping back.

Originally Posted by Xedan

I think single universe atheists are a small minority of all atheists. And, I'm not trying to sound cutting or sarcastic at all, but can you please explain why you choose to believe it is more likely that there is an almighty being outside the confines of time and space than it is likely that there is more than one universe?

Well first, I don't think the majority of atheists have even considered a multiverse - just my opinion.

I just find it more reasonable to assume one universe exists rather than infinite ones. And if there are multiple universes, I think the same question could apply to those - who created them and why. So why not leave that question in the universe I know, instead of projecting it into ones that I could never have any knowledge about.. I guess you could call it Occam's razor if you boiled it down..

But let me ask you a question. It seems that you, and a lot of other atheists, give a lot of theists shit for believing in a "magic fairy blah blah blah". How is believing in a multiverse any more logical or reasonable than believing in a designer?

Fine tuning is a theory to explain why life had to exist. And the reason life had to exist is because it was designed that way, as evidenced by fine tuning. So basically your problem only exists if the solution is true. Take out the stepping stone of the problem (which you clearly said you can't possibly know exists) and the theory is complete and total hogwash. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that?

No that isn't what fine tuning is.

I think you're confusing 'fine tuning argument for a designer', and just general 'fine tuning' which would seem to implicate either a designer or multiverses (and for reasons I detailed earlier and you've used too, I think multiverse is the only way to go).