Thread: Question for Atheists.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

And to say that a life supporting universe was "bound to happen" would be fallacious as well (see Xei's post).

To assume life is anything more than the result of a random chain of events if fallacious. To assume life is necessary to the universe is fallacious. To assume you were meant to be sitting at your computer typing that message because of some grand design is fallacious. To assume a completely separate chain of events couldn't lead to life not as we know it is fallacious. So you see, life wasn't "bound to happen", but there's no reason we can prove to show that it can't pop up in any given universe.

Also, you accept that a creator fine tuned the universe to work for us. You accept that we are only where we are because of what happened in the beginning. You accept that. But if you accept that, you can't just stop there. You accept that this creator on a much more specific scale killed six million jews in the holocaust, assassinated lincoln, caused the BP oil spill, caused the black plague and related deaths, and basically just killed every person to ever live. You accepted that this creator had the abilities to create a universe. So why did said creator not create a universe full of only peace, joy, and love, where no one dies, no one kills, and no one feels any pain, where no wrong can be done ever to anyone, and Man Kind will live in eternal bliss? He obviously had the abilities and resources. So obviously, if this universe was fine tuned, it wasn't tuned to suit us.

Originally Posted by Sound

Source?

Physicist John Polkinghorne in One World among others..

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Which approach is that?

Just one that does not involve a statistically impossible event..be it a multiverse or designer..

Originally Posted by Xedan

lolwut? I'm pretty sure that isn't a fact. It's an assumption. Think of A Sound Of Thunder. You kill a single butterfly a few million years ago, the world is completely different. It makes sense, because assuming that butterfly lived to reproduce, it could potentially wipe out billions of butterflies that would have existed. Thus theoretically reshaping evolution this way or that, forcing other species that rely on the butterfly to evolve accordingly with it. Again, this could potentially make the world completely different. Or it could potentially do almost nothing. Now with the big bang the rules, I would think, would be essentially the same. Say you remove one particle in the very first moment of the bang. This will change how gravity pulls on every single particle in the universe. This will literally reshape the universe, and, given a few billion years to change further, everything we know about the universe is potentially changed. In this completely different universe, why do you think you would have even the slightest chance of knowing whether or not life could be sustained? And it could work just the opposite, though not likely. A very minute change could be exactly that, a minute change, no matter the scale of time it is given. And if the change is larger, we don't even have the authority to dictate what the laws of physics in this universe would be.

tl;dr = The notion that we could know anything at all about an alternate universe is bullshit unless we could directly observe.

That is not an assumption. Consider this - if the ratio of the masses of the electron to the proton (again, about 1/1836) were instead 1/1800, 1/1799, 1/1798, 1/1797 and so on to infinity - life could not exist and such is scientifically proven. Use the same approach for the .7% of hydrogen given off as energy in fusion - if it were .8, .9, .10, .11...so on to infinity...life would not exist. Thus, just using these two (out of many) examples, there are only a few possibilities of viable, life supporting physical constraints and infinite sets that would not support life. And thus, the indisputable fact (given current knowledge) is that the number of universes capable of supporting life are infinitely small when compared to those that could not support life...

And as for a designer "causing" the Holocaust, the assassination of Lincoln, etc, etc, - that is completely irrelevant to the argument of fine tuning. It is way beyond the capability of humans to understand - which does not mean there is or isn't a just cause or result of such events. No one can possibly know. Maybe a certain Jew in the Holocaust would have discovered a way to produce mass amounts of antimatter (not currently thought to be possible given our resources, etc) and in effect destroy the entire Earth in a matter of milliseconds. Again, just a dumb example, but you get the idea.. My point is that no one can possibly know, and given such, we cannot even begin to have that argument. And as for your argument that there should be only joy, peace, etc - I don't agree with that either. Maybe we need war to know true peace, we need hate to know true love. To me, the only argument that begins to cause a problem in regards to the point you're getting at, is the concept of gratuitous evil - but again, there could be an unknown beneficial result to that as well and we just don't know it. This is all speculation, as it must be in my opinion - but I think you understand my point that we just can't possibly know one way or the other..

And let me clarify, maybe you're right. I'm not under the assumption that I know what's going on and everyone else is oblivious. You could be exactly right and I could be completely wrong. But given the current knowledge that man has, and until that changes, I will continue to believe what I believe and think it is the most logical, reasonable belief..

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I think we do.

What do you say about my hypothesis. There are gravitational waves that constitute a consciousness and one is at this very moment debating with others about fine tuning in some x universe. One says that only the universes with x gravitational constants are, in the possibility of a multverse, very unlikely and therefore it's better to assume fine tuning due to the existence of these gravitational entities. In y universe, a consciousness which emerged in some quark plasma debates with others how their universe is fine-tuned by god supported by the same logic. In this universe you are debating with us...

With what "authority" and logic do we limit "biological consciousness" as the best thing that can happen? So good that the universe is here for us, fine tuned to make us basically. Is the universe to be judged by entities that spout information which is in a context only percieved by these same entities, with which they define the universe based on the existence and perceptions of said entities? Why?

Humans will have human gods, aliens will have alien gods. A hammer thinks the universe is a nail hammered down by the infinitely large hammer. I surmise this is not too new agey, but I really don't think there should be a precedence of human concepts when debating something so "over our heads" as existence, the whole uni/multiverse, god - absolute truth. We are thoughts from the brains of monkeys. Tools of survival for a silly strand of DNA. In a spontaneous game of "who has the best tool" we "consciousnesses" emerged. Some concentrate on being tools, others brake away a bit and try to find purpose for existence. I'm not saying that that's the whole story... I am debating whether it's the best thing to let a tool decide what the universe is, when all it can think is in terms of "hammers and nails" basically. Science tells it as it is, we humans are the ones who say "it looks incredibly like a nail".

Beside this as my opinion. Some more directly related to your argument:
-You don't know how many universes there could be, with what kind of constants.
-If constants can differ between universes, what are they limited by?
-If a person wins a lottery, his win is statistically logical? How is this different from winning an existence?
-If one of those questions/assumptions is correct, how can you quote statistics as proof of fine tuning?

I don't hail as a pro statistical analyst or physicist. But you seem very sure in the way your numbers support "god". Maybe you can answer?

See my previous post to address your list of questions. I think my response to all of them is in there. And the chance of a person winning a lottery is 1/ten millions - the chance of a single universe, given the amount of physical constraints and constants it has, supporting life is 1/infinity. The difference there is clear..

And my argument is not that humans are the best and highest intelligence in the universe. My argument was not for the Christian God; it was for a higher intelligence or designer of some sort - call it what you will.

And again, my argument does nothing, possibly very little, to argue against a multiverse.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

A waste of time? To waste time you first need purpose. If there is no purpose other than the one we give ourselves, then no, nobody wastes their time except the ones that see themselves as wasting time.

That was VERY elegantly constructed and true. Kudos, my friend.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

That is not an assumption. Consider this - if the ratio of the masses of the electron to the proton (again, about 1/1836) were instead 1/1800, 1/1799, 1/1798, 1/1797 and so on to infinity - life could not exist and such is scientifically proven. Use the same approach for the .7% of hydrogen given off as energy in fusion - if it were .8, .9, .10, .11...so on to infinity...life would not exist. Thus, just using these two (out of many) examples, there are only a few possibilities of viable, life supporting physical constraints and infinite sets that would not support life. And thus, the indisputable fact (given current knowledge) is that the number of universes capable of supporting life are infinitely small when compared to those that could not support life.

That's all fine and good, but it still only covers earthly life, aka life as we know it. There may be billions of planets with life (which for all we know is downright likely) and none could be even nearly the same. Until we find another planet with life, it's not scientific at all to assume all life operates the same way. And if we start to bring in a new universe with new "settings" it doesn't seem too far fetched to assume it could develop it's own unique forms of life, even if our universe only contains life as we know it.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

And the chance of a person winning a lottery is 1/ten millions - the chance of a single universe, given the amount of physical constraints and constants it has, supporting life is 1/infinity.

No. Not infinity. Only an inconceivably high number. It seems pretty well established that the universe is finite. And nothing that is finite could possibly have an infinite amount of ways to be re-tuned. Again, just inconceivably high. So now that we've determined that, you should see that the only difference between the lottery example and the universe is that there were even worse odds for the universe. I'd like to bring my dice model back. Obviously, if you roll dice, the odds are against you no matter what one number you pick. But it still has to land on something no matter what. Therefor, no matter how bad the odds against you are, it's never impossible for you to be right. The same goes for which universe would occur.

And Bonsay didn't say you were arguing for a religion. In fact, unlike most theists in this thread, you are seeming to keep it as scientific as is possible when it comes to a higher power. What he meant was you assume that because life exists, life MUST exist. You say that the odds are against life, so the fact that life came up means it had to. That is an assumption that, whether you realize it or not, is purely egotistical. The universe could get along fine without life, and would have had that been the case.

Originally Posted by Xedan

That's all fine and good, but it still only covers earthly life, aka life as we know it. There may be billions of planets with life (which for all we know is downright likely) and none could be even nearly the same. Until we find another planet with life, it's not scientific at all to assume all life operates the same way. And if we start to bring in a new universe with new "settings" it doesn't seem too far fetched to assume it could develop it's own unique forms of life, even if our universe only contains life as we know it.

True that may be - most of our scientific analyses on life are centered around carbon-based life. There are, however, also aspects of the fine tuning argument not based on carbon life at all, such as the strength of the big bang among others. Thus, the fine tuning argument encompasses more than just "life as we know it". So in that respect, the fine tuning argument holds..

Originally Posted by Xedan

No. Not infinity. Only an inconceivably high number. It seems pretty well established that the universe is finite. And nothing that is finite could possibly have an infinite amount of ways to be re-tuned. Again, just inconceivably high. So now that we've determined that, you should see that the only difference between the lottery example and the universe is that there were even worse odds for the universe. I'd like to bring my dice model back. Obviously, if you roll dice, the odds are against you no matter what one number you pick. But it still has to land on something no matter what. Therefor, no matter how bad the odds against you are, it's never impossible for you to be right. The same goes for which universe would occur.

And Bonsay didn't say you were arguing for a religion. In fact, unlike most theists in this thread, you are seeming to keep it as scientific as is possible when it comes to a higher power. What he meant was you assume that because life exists, life MUST exist. You say that the odds are against life, so the fact that life came up means it had to. That is an assumption that, whether you realize it or not, is purely egotistical. The universe could get along fine without life, and would have had that been the case.

Yes. Infinity. I thought my previous post explained it but I'll try a different example. 10 is a finite number and a small one at that, correct? We'll use three numbers to represent different "settings" of the universe, and the number 10 to represent the universe as a whole. The first number will represent electron/proton mass ratio, the second strong force, and the third the amount of mass given off as energy during fusion. We can make that number 10 (the universe) by adding up the three numbers (settings). We could use 3,2,5 - 3.2,4.2,2.6 - 9.1,.8,.1 - .1,.2,9.7 - 1.22,3.78,5 - and so on to literally infinity. There are literally infinite ways to make that number 10 (even though it is obviously finite), and that's only using three numbers. Just as there are infinitely many ways to "tune" the universe (much higher than 10) with different settings (much more than 3). And as our technology and knowledge currently dictates, there are very very few initial settings that will make a viable universe, leaving the set of non-viable universe settings at infinity.

And my argument is due to the fact that the odds are statistically infinite (again, this is only with current knowledge and technology, etc) against life - the fact that life exists cannot be disregarded as evidence for a designer and a purpose.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

True that may be - most of our scientific analyses on life are centered around carbon-based life. There are, however, also aspects of the fine tuning argument not based on carbon life at all, such as the strength of the big bang among others. Thus, the fine tuning argument encompasses more than just "life as we know it". So in that respect, the fine tuning argument holds..

No, no it doesn't. You don't know if there is any other way the big bang could have happened. Perhaps the birth of our universe would have been identical to the birth of any other universe with any other set of laws. You don't have anything to compare probability to.

Yes. Infinity. I thought my previous post explained it but I'll try a different example. 10 is a finite number and a small one at that, correct? We'll use three numbers to represent different "settings" of the universe, and the number 10 to represent the universe as a whole. The first number will represent electron/proton mass ratio, the second strong force, and the third the amount of mass given off as energy during fusion. We can make that number 10 (the universe) by adding up the three numbers (settings). We could use 3,2,5 - 3.2,4.2,2.6 - 9.1,.8,.1 - .1,.2,9.7 - 1.22,3.78,5 - and so on to literally infinity. There are literally infinite ways to make that number 10 (even though it is obviously finite), and that's only using three numbers. Just as there are infinitely many ways to "tune" the universe (much higher than 10) with different settings (much more than 3). And as our technology and knowledge currently dictates, there are very very few initial settings that will make a viable universe, leaving the set of non-viable universe settings at infinity.

Again, you don't know if there are any other possible universes out there. You don't know if there is some set of laws that governs universe formation. What is all this nonsense about 10, too? Does every universe have to add up to some arbitrary sum of features? Just because you can conceive of a different universe doesn't mean it is actually possible. Our universe may very well be one of only a few possible universes. Perhaps the laws of the universe are tied together, and in its formation, it took the creation of one law to bring about all the other ones. Simply put, you don't know. You can't tell me the universe is fine tuned without anything to compare it with.

And my argument is due to the fact that the odds are statistically infinite (again, this is only with current knowledge and technology, etc) against life - the fact that life exists cannot be disregarded as evidence for a designer and a purpose.

I certainly beg to differ.

Originally Posted by Mario92

No, no it doesn't. You don't know if there is any other way the big bang could have happened. Perhaps the birth of our universe would have been identical to the birth of any other universe with any other set of laws. You don't have anything to compare probability to.



Again, you don't know if there are any other possible universes out there. You don't know if there is some set of laws that governs universe formation. What is all this nonsense about 10, too? Does every universe have to add up to some arbitrary sum of features? Just because you can conceive of a different universe doesn't mean it is actually possible. Our universe may very well be one of only a few possible universes. Perhaps the laws of the universe are tied together, and in its formation, it took the creation of one law to bring about all the other ones. Simply put, you don't know. You can't tell me the universe is fine tuned without anything to compare it with.



I certainly beg to differ.

I'm sorry Mario, but you're not really understanding the fine tuning argument. Your argument is that if the big bang had been stronger or weaker, maybe the universe would have different laws that could sustain life. You can't change the laws of this universe prior to, directly before, during, or after the big bang. Our knowledge and theory of the big bang itself is based on the laws of this universe, and based on them as unchanging. And using the laws of this universe - if the big bang had been 1 part in 1060 less, the universe would have collapsed in on itself - there wouldn't be any different laws, there wouldn't be a universe. [same goes for all force strengths, atom masses, etc, etc, etc] So, I can most definitely compare this universe to another - because I am using the same laws. The only way to argue otherwise (based on what we know and believe now) would be to argue for a multiverse, in which human knowledge of this universe and laws would have no meaning whatsoever.

It seems like you are actually (maybe inadvertently?) arguing for a multiverse, which I don't disagree with.

I feel like this is turning into more of a personal battle, and less of a learning experience...so maybe we should just agree to disagree...

Just a small note that I'll get round to responding to the stuff here shortly. I agree with Aquinas that people don't actually understand the strong logical basis of the argument. Fine tuning is a real phenomenon which requires explaining (top cosmologists including Stephen Hawking acknowledge this).

So far I've only been able to spend about five minutes a day writing my post out, hopefully I'll get it done tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

I think most of you do not completely understand the logic behind the fine tuning argument.

Why? I think you see the beauty in the numbers and ratios etc. That is just another way to describe the 'fine tuning' of the universe, but I don't think it is something that can ever be 'proven.' If people can see that what you're saying is intrinsically true (to both the idea behind the analysis and the universe itself), rather than pure probability alone, then I think there'd be more agreement in this thread. Interesting posts.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

With what "authority" and logic do we limit "biological consciousness" as the best thing that can happen? So good that the universe is here for us, fine tuned to make us basically. Is the universe to be judged by entities that spout information which is in a context only percieved by these same entities, with which they define the universe based on the existence and perceptions of said entities? Why?

These are great points and I don't think you really addressed them specifically, Aquinas. There are some holes that one could argue, such as statistics of things "going wrong" or not working. Don't you think?

The point of my previous post was to show, simply by generality, that speculation of the content of the universe, whether it be by pointing out numbers or the beauty of laws, is not sufficient as evidence. Although to a believer, it is acceptable. But there are deeper ways of understanding evidence of a higher being that more people can come to an agreement with; it can be found in seeing the limitations of judgment on the universe; the limitations of explanation and causality, to name a couple.

Originally Posted by Xei

- There's a lot of rubbish in our universe which doesn't do anything. Neutrinos, for instance, cannot form a medium for the emergence of complex structures. They don't interact with anything; they're junk. They fly around the universe, completely through normal matter in fact, with no effect. This, to me, is obviously because if a universe is to be fine tuned, the restrictions places on the 'tuning' are going to necessitate some stuff which isn't important. I think the existence of 'pointless stuff' is the real clincher that the universe isn't designed by a higher intelligence. There is simply no logical reason they would create redundant particles which we were barely even able to detect, if they have an omnipotent grasp on reality.

As Bonsay said, "The problem of "fine tuning" only exists if you apply purpose to the universe." I believe this matter of neutrinos being junk is no different. You only say there is 'pointless stuff' because you are still unaware of the intrinsic importance of such things. Perhaps they do not reveal their 'function' as easily as protons or electrons do? It is a simple judgment.

Back to 'fine tuning': Although I agree entirely with you on the great conditions for life and evolution (etc.) it still has gaps where somebody can point out (similar to what you just said about neutrinos), that there is no apparent 'fine tuning.' In the case where the whole universe is finely tuned, we cannot then say that it is true for one thing rather than another. Much to our surprise, when we give up judgment, we will find that everything is tuned as it should be anyway. To say that a 'higher-being exists' because everything works as it should, although it may be true, is not a suitable claim for evidence (e.g. to a skeptic), because that claim may seem to be parallel with personal opinion, although essentially it isn't. What solves the most problems here is the ability to see the difference between a arbitrary projection and a verbalized concept of a fact.

- The universe seems pretty pointless. Humanity has no single goal which the higher intelligence might want achieved. The intelligence cannot be altruistic either; I could design a better world than this in five minutes if I wanted everybody to be happy. And if the intelligence is just bored, well, it seems like a hell of an endeavour to cure boredom. The whole system also seems extremely inefficient. Humans only make up a minuscule amount of 'stuff' in the universe; the vast majority of it we'll never see.

You can create a better world in five minutes... maybe in your dreams, or otherwise just on your computer. But in order to understand the universe, humans need to admit that their ideals are just projections, and they are limited to their own perception. There is no such thing as a "better world." Although you did say "Humanity has no single goal which the higher intelligence might want achieved", which seems plausible, but if we take into account and accept 'fine tuning', our human-goals are then something that is created collectively and unified by a higher-being. Simultaneously, this means that the higher-being has no goals to be fulfilled, because they too, are projections.

- A final point about the argument in general is that the only thing it does is assert the existence of an intelligence. It does nothing to describe what attributes said intelligence may possess; hence it can't be used to argue for the Christian God, for example; or probably to argue for any God at all, for that matter.

I have trouble seeing how this is true. The argument for fine tuning asserts that there are intangible, flawless potentialities beyond the restrictions of causality, and that certainly refutes materialism. This stretches the scope of understanding to something that is universal, non-exclusive and non-binding. Somebody may say that there are paradoxes in searching for attributes of (generic) God, because they are not specific or distinctive. The attributes of a higher-being cannot be found through proof, therefore.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Simply put, you don't know. You can't tell me the universe is fine tuned without anything to compare it with.

That's the limitation. Aquinas is obviously comparing it to other hypothetical possibilities, and while he is making a good point. But it means that, there probably isn't a very clear way of 'proving' that the whole universe is created perfectly, since that would tend to form arbitrary possibilities. It only found to be perfectly 'tuned' by seeing the universe the way it is. It really is that simple.

Just to clear this up. I understand the meaning behind the fine tuning argument. It's just that I mostly went about discussing it through some sort of philosophical means regarding epistemology and ontology, the possbility of the question itself being "deluded". Purpose is something a human only experiences subjectively and could simply project onto some objective reality. Putting that aside, the only problem I have with Aquinas is the statistics he puts forth. Not the actual hypothesis and its potential validity. Even if we hold true the statistics from Aquinas, that the probablity of us existing in a multiverse is 1/infinity... I still say that it doesn't mean much, if only because we don't know the scale of this hypothetical multiverse. What does 1/infinity probablity mean if the multiverse is infinite for example.

Saying we are "lottery winners" is just one explanation which isn't made redundant by these hypothetical statistics as we all agree. So going back to my philosophy again - it all comes down to those dualistic concepts... looking at it objectively, just noting cause and effect which happens in the universe and possibly transcends the universe; or looking at it subjectively, through distinctly human eyes seeing thought, will, purpose, design and fine tuning. 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?

Originally Posted by Aquinas

Yes. Infinity. I thought my previous post explained it but I'll try a different example. 10 is a finite number and a small one at that, correct? We'll use three numbers to represent different "settings" of the universe, and the number 10 to represent the universe as a whole. The first number will represent electron/proton mass ratio, the second strong force, and the third the amount of mass given off as energy during fusion. We can make that number 10 (the universe) by adding up the three numbers (settings). We could use 3,2,5 - 3.2,4.2,2.6 - 9.1,.8,.1 - .1,.2,9.7 - 1.22,3.78,5 - and so on to literally infinity. There are literally infinite ways to make that number 10 (even though it is obviously finite), and that's only using three numbers. Just as there are infinitely many ways to "tune" the universe (much higher than 10) with different settings (much more than 3). And as our technology and knowledge currently dictates, there are very very few initial settings that will make a viable universe, leaving the set of non-viable universe settings at infinity.

You're relying on the fact that numbers have their limits. If you do not round and do not use algebra, ratios, or anything additional, a number by itself will always stretch to infinity if it tries to define something in reality. Think about a 1x1x1 cube. 1 is rounded. it will never, NEVER be one no matter what 1x1x1 box you're talking about. Maybe it's 1.25. But it can be defined more. 1.253. 1.2536. 1.25364. anything measured in numbers will stretch on infinitely because the exact length of single "point" is impossible to comprehend. The problem of infinity does not exist unless you rely on numbers, which humans do.

So again, the odds were not infinitely against us. Either that, or you have to change your idea of what the phrase means. Because if you assume that odds being infinitely against something means it can't happen, then there would not be a universe, because there are the exact same chances for each individual universe to have existed.

And on the note of fine tuning as a whole, it seems the one real argument against it is something you have failed to address. You say there is a reason this universe exists beyond luck. Why? Why this universe? Why does bearing life make a universe better? All in all we're just matter and chemical reactions. There is no purpose for life any more than there is a purpose for a barren planet wiped out in a super nova. We exist for ourselves. We don't benefit the universe. Our presence doesn't make the universe better. In fact it could be argued that it makes it worse. We've only lead to the accelerating destruction of the earth. And eventually we'll all die. Not just individually, the human race as a whole, and all life. And then what? What was the point which the higher-power thought was so important that he created a whole universe just for us?

Originally Posted by Xedan

Because if you assume that odds being infinitely against something means it can't happen, then there would not be a universe, because there are the exact same chances for each individual universe to have existed.

And right there is the conclusion of the fine tuning argument and why it so strongly supports a designer. That we are here to have this conversation is evidence alone for a higher intelligence (if you choose to believe in a single universe that is).

Originally Posted by Xedan

And on the note of fine tuning as a whole, it seems the one real argument against it is something you have failed to address. You say there is a reason this universe exists beyond luck. Why? Why this universe? Why does bearing life make a universe better? All in all we're just matter and chemical reactions. There is no purpose for life any more than there is a purpose for a barren planet wiped out in a super nova. We exist for ourselves. We don't benefit the universe. Our presence doesn't make the universe better. In fact it could be argued that it makes it worse. We've only lead to the accelerating destruction of the earth. And eventually we'll all die. Not just individually, the human race as a whole, and all life. And then what? What was the point which the higher-power thought was so important that he created a whole universe just for us?

No human could possibly know the answers to these questions and to even ask them is absurd. And also, you don't know any of this - you don't know the human race is bound to die out. Maybe in a thousand years the technology will exist to leave the solar system if not the galaxy and find a hospitable environment before the sun dies out or any other catastrophic events. It would be ignorant to assume one way or the other. Maybe sometime in the distant future, a human will prevent a galaxy's destruction or something alone those lines. Just a dumb example but the possibility of something similar to that is in no way out of the question. You have argued that the fine tuning is just based on subjective observations by humans - but the majority of your last post is based on your own personal opinions about the universe - and maybe that is causing you to lose sight of the actual logical basis behind the argument itself. 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.

Originally Posted by really

These are great points and I don't think you really addressed them specifically, Aquinas. There are some holes that one could argue, such as statistics of things "going wrong" or not working. Don't you think?

I don't think there are examples of things "going wrong". I can't think of any...can you? (And I just want you to know that I'm asking that sincerely - not at all condescending or arrogant) 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..

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.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

And right there is the conclusion of the fine tuning argument and why it so strongly supports a designer. That we are here to have this conversation is evidence alone for a higher intelligence (if you choose to believe in a single universe that is).

It's cute how you totally ignore what I say.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

No human could possibly know the answers to these questions and to even ask them is absurd. And also, you don't know any of this - you don't know the human race is bound to die out. Maybe in a thousand years the technology will exist to leave the solar system if not the galaxy and find a hospitable environment before the sun dies out or any other catastrophic events. It would be ignorant to assume one way or the other. Maybe sometime in the distant future, a human will prevent a galaxy's destruction or something alone those lines. Just a dumb example but the possibility of something similar to that is in no way out of the question. You have argued that the fine tuning is just based on subjective observations by humans - but the majority of your last post is based on your own personal opinions about the universe - and maybe that is causing you to lose sight of the actual logical basis behind the argument itself. 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.

My post wasn't based on my opinions, it was based on history, the projected future, and basic science. You can't go faster than light (basic logic), or at least any way imagined is hardy even able to be called theoretical at this point, and we will soon either multiply to an extent where resources will be depleted (projected future), or wage a suicidal nuclear war wiping out massive amounts of people AND resources (history/projected future).

And the fine tuning idea serves no purpose. It doesn't give itself any more credibility than any legitimate theory and it solves no problems while raising hundreds more. And you're last sentence pretty much sums that up. It says the theory is something to make people feel good while telling them nothing new. We have a word for that: Religion.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

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

Your first post about fine tuning listed them all. You were talking about things going wrong so that life can't form, and thus were saying that life is the ultimate goal of the universe, because without it the universe is somehow "wrong".

And until you address this like we've asked you to multiple times and you stop pansy-footing around the question, I advise you not to reply to any of my posts. Because if you refuse to address the largest hole in your theory then I henceforth will assume you gave up and/or are just trolling.

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!

Hey gnome!

:V

Originally Posted by thegnome54

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.

great minds think alike, only I said trillion sided. And he hasn't addressed them, he just responds to the most random, unimportant part he can and hopes no one presses him to answer the specific question. I swear I would not be surprised if he points out incorrect grammar next time someone asks him something.

And, Aquinas, if you want to redeem yourself, try answering questions instead of correcting them or saying "such questions are absurd unless the answer is a higher force".

[Note; this was going to be a mini reply in lieu of my larger response but it became kinda detailed and hopefully addresses the point at which most people are at right now in the conversation].

Well I'd reply that supporting observation is inherently special.

It's obvious that life is a special phenomenon. Of all the billions of faces of the die, why did we land on the one which allows for emergent complexity? 999,999,999 universes have no emergent complexity, 1 does, and we happen to be in that one by chance? This requires explanation. Sure, maybe it's just luck, but if there's an alternative explanation which doesn't rely on you winning the lottery five times in a row, we should probably go for that one.

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.

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.

The fact that our part of reality seems to want to do so requires explanation. And the obvious explanation to me is a multiverse. I consider my position to be the naturalistic one here, and the converse to be the 'the universe loves us' side of the coin. Not vice versa.

People think this argument is exotic (and flawed) sometimes, but actually we readily use it all the time. For example, when creationists say 'how come we're in such a perfect solar system for life? And how come we're on such a perfect planet? We're at the perfect distance from the sun so that water is liquid, etcetera'. We all know this is flawed thinking because it starts off by assuming that we 'had' to be in this solar system (or 'had' to be on this planet); then it seems like a total coincidence that the solar system fitted our needs. The correct way of thinking about this is that we could only have ever evolved in the first place on a planet which allowed for evolution. Only a small number of solar systems actually allow for this because they have no concern for providing sustenance for life and are formed with random qualities, but of course a small number of 'just right' solar systems do exist, and we had to end up on one of those.

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.

But in this case, we're talking about the existence of the whole playing field on which evolution takes place. If there were only a one in a billion chance the ground had holes in it (err, I really can't think of a good story for this situation), the puddle would be perfectly sensible to be amazed that he existed, though he would still be an idiot for being amazed at how well he fit inside the hole. If there are no planets around the star, those stars are hopeless. If there's no liquid, again, hopeless. It's very unlikely any piece of rock should support life.

Now, to continue the Adams theme, consider this:

The planet Krikkit and its sun are completely enveloped in a gas cloud, which prevents the native, peaceful Krikkiters from seeing any of the rest of the universe. In fact, they're completely convinced that they're the only things in existence, and when they find out that they are not, they decide to destroy everything else.

The Krikkiters didn't really need to have their dust cloud permeated by a foreign agent to figure this out, though. Were they good enough scientists, they would have noticed that their planet, against very long odds, had just the right physical conditions and chemical constituents to allow for some kind of life.

What would have been the more logical conclusion for them to make?

a) It's all just a massive coincidence, let's go back to reading Nietzsche.
b) It's all just designed by a lovely chap, let's go back to reading the Bible.
c) There's really no reason to think this was the only planet ever made just because we can't see others. Maybe there's loads of others with random conditions and a small number have other life on. Let's go destroy them.

First of all, you still haven't addressed my first objection, which I consider to be stronger. It would be nice to hear your thoughts on that too.

Anyways, I'm still not convinced that life is special. I don't know enough biology, physics, or chemistry to know what would happen if things were different, and usually I will bow to the experts. However, as long as we as a species are still being surprised by extremophiles in the places we least expect them, I think it's safe to say that we don't know enough to say that similarly complex systems wouldn't arise in different conditions.

The emergence of complex life could just be the way the universe works - the way all similar-enough universes would work. Universes that would collapse may well have their own complexities deep within their incomprehensible density.

My basic objection is that we just don't know enough about any of this to use the fine-tuning argument in good conscience. We have no idea why the elements involved are the way they are, what their fundamental nature is, how unique we are as a species or a general phenomenon, etc.

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.