Fine tuning of the Universe

[Mr.Badham]

I'm confused, because it seems like the argument could go both ways.

Either the universe is fine tuned for life, and therefore is full of it, or only Earth is fine tuned for life, and the rest of the universe will have none of it.

I want theists to take a stand right here and say;

The universe is fine tuned, and is full of life.

Or

The Earth is fine tuned, the rest of the universe has none of it.

Then I want you to stake your religiosity on it. If you make the claim, one way or the other, and are shown to be wrong, you will then become an atheist.

If you are not willing to do this, I would like you to proclaim that the argument is bogus, and should never be used.

You have 1 of 3 options;
The universe is full of life.
Only earth has life.
The fine tuning argument is bogus and should never be used.

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

"If the universe were fine tuned for human life, then why is there any disease at all?"
Perhaps humans are fine tuned for disease?- (of body and mind)

There are far too many unknown factors so the original question cannot be answered at this stage. Maybe in the next hundred or hundredthousand years?
So far your answers appear to be the best. (note: Appear)

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 1 by Mr.Badham]
"Then I want you to stake your religiosity on it. If you make the claim, one way or the other, and are shown to be wrong, you will then become an atheist."

Before making any claims who will be the judge?
Who is going to define extraterrestrial life? Presumably micro organism will be included. Or the hills are alive with the sound of music?
Another aspect - what do you consider religiosity to be - Spiritual, Scientific. Seeing beyond into the Universe, Listening to the music of the spheres? The new church of atheism. pantheism, panentheism? Then we have it that Austin Cline claimed that atheism is the fastest growing religion! So why give up one religion for another?
Apart from this my tentative claim is you lack the authority to ask and to judge any answer that may be given, for to do so you must be one of those who are defined as a God. (<these all indicate the levity/jocular part of my answer)

Perhaps this link may be revealing -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... -life.html

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to Theunis]

Yes, any life found will be enough to say that the universe is fine tuned.

The point being, that before that life is found, tell me what your religion says about it.

If religion can be anything, then religion is nothing. That isn't for me to decide. I couldn't care less either way.

I'm not making a judgement about life or the universe. I'm not making a statement about life or the universe. I'm confused about the stance of religion on life and the universe.

The "Fine tuning" argument is one used by religious people to justify a belief in God. I'm simply asking what exactly the religious people are arguing for, and if proved wrong, that they change their belief in God.

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 33 by Mr.Badham]

The point being, that before that life is found, tell me what your religion says about it.

I walk an uncategorized path. I can but tell you my thoughts on the matter - Man is far too egotistic for his own good. I consider earth to be a mud ball on the outskirts of the Universe. We are far too presumptuous to think we the Johnny come latelies are the first and only. Our isolation for millennia has been complete and we are only now again slowly rising from the ashes of what we did to ourselves.

If religion can be anything, then religion is nothing. That isn't for me to decide. I couldn't care less either way.

Religion can be anything which has its own rules and dogmas and sets itself apart from others. Yes this many having their "religious" thoughts even though some deny what is theirs is in fact a form of religion. Look at the multitude of religions and so called non religions and find that it is their thoughts that define them.

I'm not making a judgement about life or the universe. I'm not making a statement about life or the universe. I'm confused about the stance of religion on life and the universe.

Mankind is so bombarded with fallacies and lies that it is no wonder that so many are confused. It is not only religions that cause these problems it is the ignorance of those who profess to be better equipped and suffer from pride and delusions of supremacy/grandeur and then propagate their own twisted views as the yellow brick road.

The "Fine tuning" argument is one used by religious people to justify a belief in God. I'm simply asking what exactly the religious people are arguing for, and if proved wrong, that they change their belief in God.

Do you realize that this which you say, you say as if you are a religious person who weeps for his brethren who have lost their way - Many will fine tune their own destruction. Lazarus may say father forgive them for they do not what they do but Christians must be reminded that Jesus said many will come and say I did your works and deeds etc; It will be said to them I know you not and chase them away as evil doers. (Matthew 7:21 – 23).

There are far too many blind leading the blind and an abyss of destruction which they cannot see will meet them along the way. Hmm sounds like preaching but it is not it is me stating what I perceive will be the result of what they are doing.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to Theunis]

Is the fine tuning argument important to you?
Does it give validity to what you believe?
Have you ever used the argument to back up whatever it is you claim to believe?
What does the fine tuning argument mean to you?

[instantc]

Perhaps someone here could help me understand this argument, as I have given it some thought and still can't figure out how it is meant to succeed.

So, the universe is fine tuned for life, lets grant this for the sake of the argument.

Now, the fine tuning is either a result of chance, necessity or design.

So why exactly couldn't it have happened by chance? This is where I cannot follow the line of argumentation.

The usual argument is that the probability of it happening is so very slim that it is very unlikely that it happened by chance. But, surely probability calculus does not work that way. Let's draw an analogy. Suppose I shuffle a deck of cards 100 times. Now, regardless of what combination of configurations I get as a result, the chance that those exact configurations should appear in that order is unthinkably low. Should we conclude that I therefore intentionally set the deck in those exact configurations? Surely not.

Sometimes folks who endorse this argument make an analogy, for example, to trees on the street dropping their leaves so that they form a complicated sentence in the English language. Obviously the probability of that happening by chance is very low, so we can conclude that it was done intentionally. However, every specific formation of leaves is equally unlikely, and consequently the mere fact that an event was improbable cannot mean that it didn't happen by chance. Surely there must be another element present for us to make such conclusion.

What am I missing from this argument?

[Wootah]

It's like demanding a painter can't use red paint unless the whole picture is painted red.

That's the point - If a painting is said to be "fined tuned for red," then the expectation that the picture is predominantly red is perfectly understandable, no? Conversely if a painting is mostly black with a speck of red, one wouldn't suggest that the painting is fine tuned for red.

It seems like you are arguing that all swans are white and to hell with the black swans.

If the painting supports red, it supports red.

Fine tuned means that we can have musical instruments but only some are tuned to make music. So we have planets everywhere and it appears only one is tuned for life. It doesn't mean, in common usage, that all instruments are automatically tuned. It seems like an argument trying to invalidate the usage of a word.

If there is no life anywhere else, does that mean evolution is false? Or would it mean that the earth fine tuned for evolution?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 27 by Box Whatbox]

Well Christianity is humanity-centric. The whole universe is fallen and in growing pains awaiting the new creation. Morally equal lifeforms would be counter to those tenets.

Ultimately everyone has heard the message of Christ and the people groups that haven't rejected the word in their ancestry somewhere. How can aliens ever even hear the word?

Lines of thinking like that.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah]

I'm still confused as to which "Fine tuning" argument you adhere to;
The one that says "Earth is fine tuned", or the one that says "The Universe is fine tuned".

The Earth is in the right spot from the sun, the outer planets protect us from meteors.

The universal constants and laws, if slightly different, would not allow life.

I guess I'm eating the whole cake right now.

[FarWanderer]

Perhaps someone here could help me understand this argument, as I have given it some thought and still can't figure out how it is meant to succeed.

So, the universe is fine tuned for life, lets grant this for the sake of the argument.

Now, the fine tuning is either a result of chance, necessity or design.

So why exactly couldn't it have happened by chance? This is where I cannot follow the line of argumentation.

The usual argument is that the probability of it happening is so very slim that it is very unlikely that it happened by chance. But, surely probability calculus does not work that way. Let's draw an analogy. Suppose I shuffle a deck of cards 100 times. Now, regardless of what combination of configurations I get as a result, the chance that those exact configurations should appear in that order is unthinkably low. Should we conclude that I therefore intentionally set the deck in those exact configurations? Surely not.

Sometimes folks who endorse this argument make an analogy, for example, to trees on the street dropping their leaves so that they form a complicated sentence in the English language. Obviously the probability of that happening by chance is very low, so we can conclude that it was done intentionally. However, every specific formation of leaves is equally unlikely, and consequently the mere fact that an event was improbable cannot mean that it didn't happen by chance. Surely there must be another element present for us to make such conclusion.

What am I missing from this argument?

There's an implied assumption that intelligent life has a special significance like that of a complicated sentence.

In the leaf analogy, because the sentence would have special significance and low probability of occuring on its own, it's a lot more credible to consider that it was the work of an intelligent agent. The low probability itself doesn't get the argument anywhere, as you say.

Of course, to assume humans have special significance is also begging the question, but propenents of this argument don't realize or acknowledge it.