Fine Tuning

[UNBeliever905]

I wanted to discuss this topic after watching an intelligence squared debate quite awhile ago and again while reading the head to head debate between OSTENG and NENB.

Now the "Fine Tuning" of the universe, theory is "the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

Now in this case i would argue, that the theory itself is not as important as why it is believed. It is believed because people who have a preexisting belief in a designer, see the actual fact that if certain things in our universe were different we, and this is the important bit, AS WE ARE HERE AND NOW could not be here. Now they see this fact and say "Well if there is no God, WHY is the universe perfect for us". Admittedly a slightly reductionist version of the argument but i dont think it misrepresents it honestly. My point is can a believer in fine tuning tell me why me thinking a god of the gaps argument based on a pointless question is an acceptable argument in an intelligent conversation?

[otseng]

Fine tuning is based on an invisible creator.

And your point is?

A creator that has not been proven.

Nobody is trying to prove anything. Let me make it clear that nobody can prove the existence of God. But, there exist evidence and arguments to support the existence of God (fine-tuning being one). Does it demonstrate with 100% certainty that God exists? No. Is it rational to believe in God when evidence and arguments exist to support it? Yes.

[Goat]

Fine tuning is based on an invisible creator.

And your point is?

A creator that has not been proven.

Nobody is trying to prove anything. Let me make it clear that nobody can prove the existence of God. But, there exist evidence and arguments to support the existence of God (fine-tuning being one). Does it demonstrate with 100% certainty that God exists? No. Is it rational to believe in God when evidence and arguments exist to support it? Yes.

Well, I do have the problem with the concept of 'fine tuning'. The biggest issue is that it assumes that life is a goal. Can you provide evidence., or reasoning that is not circular that life is a goal?

[Nickman]

Fine tuning is based on an invisible creator.

And your point is?

A creator that has not been proven.

Nobody is trying to prove anything. Let me make it clear that nobody can prove the existence of God. But, there exist evidence and arguments to support the existence of God (fine-tuning being one). Does it demonstrate with 100% certainty that God exists? No. Is it rational to believe in God when evidence and arguments exist to support it? Yes.

What supports fine tuning? It is a perception, that is all. Basically what you have is that the perception of fine tuning supports fine tuning.

[UNBeliever905]

Fine tuning is based on an invisible creator.

And your point is?

A creator that has not been proven.

Nobody is trying to prove anything. Let me make it clear that nobody can prove the existence of God. But, there exist evidence and arguments to support the existence of God (fine-tuning being one). Does it demonstrate with 100% certainty that God exists? No. Is it rational to believe in God when evidence and arguments exist to support it? Yes.

But what is the evidence? that its fine tuned? I havent seen you even support the fine tuning argument in any way other than saying it is. Im not asking anyone to prove 100% there is or isnt a god, im trying to find out why you find it reasonable to make unsubstantiated claims on fine tuning. The whole reason i made this thread was to try to put what NENB has been trying to get you to answer, what makes you think its fine tuned? The actual evidence points to not. Fine tuning is a presuppositionalist argument and therefore meritless because your assuming it IS fine tuned and not just as it is and we are how we are because of that.

[otseng]

Let me point you all back to Master McCulloch.

Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life.

Do you agree with this statement or not? If not, please show why it is wrong.

[Jashwell]

Let me point you all back to Master McCulloch.

Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life.

Do you agree with this statement or not? If not, please show why it is wrong.

You mean "Please let me show you why it's right"

What counts as a small amount?
How do we know the range of a constant?
How can we know what range would not produce any kind of life?

The statement isn't justified.
As I said before, we have a sample size of one. If you wanted to find out what the people of America were like, and you asked one person all the questions, do you think that will be representative of the whole?

[Goat]

Let me point you all back to Master McCulloch.

Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life.

Do you agree with this statement or not? If not, please show why it is wrong.

Well, the statement is incorrect. Let's look at some some articles and some simpulations done by scientists.

1) Adams, F.C. (2008). "Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2008 (8): 010. arXiv:0807.3697. Bibcode:2008JCAP...08..010A. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010.

Fred Adams has done a study investigating the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.

2) s The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? Victor J. Stenger, University of Colorado.

Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly "fine-tuned" parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed. Victor Stenger has simulated different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied. He found that long-lived stars could exist over a wide parameter range, and concluded that "... a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes"


3) "Looking for Life in the Multiverse," in the January, 2010 issue of Scientific American

Alejandro Jenkins And Gilad Perez (physicists) have done some theoretical work suggesting that if TWO or more constants were changed simultaneously, the phase space that might support life is not as small.

This basically debunks the fine tuned argument, since, it appears you don't need as much fine tuning as claimed

[UNBeliever905]

Let me point you all back to Master McCulloch.

Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life.

Do you agree with this statement or not? If not, please show why it is wrong.

Its clearly wrong by omission, should say "Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life AS WE KNOW IT"

[Neatras]

Let me point you all back to Master McCulloch.

Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life.

Do you agree with this statement or not? If not, please show why it is wrong.

Its clearly wrong by omission, should say "Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life AS WE KNOW IT"

I find the close inspection of life in theoretical universes to be rather shortsighted. Certain constraints lead to certain reactions which, under larger conditions, result in more complex reactions. If a universe existed with different physical constraints, it would likely have different physical reactions and reasonably different complex reactions in relation to the size of the system.

[McCulloch]

Let me point you all back to Master McCulloch.

Here is what we know. We exist in a universe with certain physical constants. We know that if any of these constants were changed a small amount, the resulting universe would not be stable and could not have produced life.

Do you agree with this statement or not? If not, please show why it is wrong.

Some physicists argue that there are 26 fundamental constants. There may be fewer, once certain interactions between particles and Higgs boson are better understood. What theoretical physicists have determined, is that if a small change were to be made to any one of these constants, there would be a mathematical certainty that the universe built on those constants would not be stable, it might collapse on itself or expand forever into ever thinning near vacuum. I think that it is safe to say that nothing like life could exist is such universes.

The premature conclusion made by many creationists is that the particular combination of fundamental constants that we find for this universe is the only possible combination. This would be a false conclusion. We don't know if there might be a stable combination of fundamental constants where two, three, four or more of the constants in our universe were varied. Back to my big dark sheet analogy, a pin hole in the sheet represents our universe. The places in the sheet without holes represents the many potential universes that would not be stable. We have determined mathematically that there are no pin holes close to our pin hole. But we don't know if there may be other pin holes elsewhere. Would anyone like to perform the calculations with 26 variables? Ours may not be the only possible universe.