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.

[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?

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.

Well put. The argument just seems to be blatantly begging the question. If we assume that there exists God, to whom life has special significance, then clearly the rational conclusion is that he created a life-permitting universe purposefully and didn't just "roll a dice" and get lucky. Without that hidden assumption it's hard to see how the argument gets off the ground.

In the light of this observation, it is hard to understand why so many opponents of the argument find it so convincing that they feel the need to appeal to things like multiverse in order to successfully rebut it.

[Ancient of Years]

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.

Well put. The argument just seems to be blatantly begging the question. If we assume that there exists God, to whom life has special significance, then clearly the rational conclusion is that he created a life-permitting universe purposefully and didn't just "roll a dice" and get lucky. Without that hidden assumption it's hard to see how the argument gets off the ground.

In the light of this observation, it is hard to understand why so many opponents of the argument find it so convincing that they feel the need to appeal to things like multiverse in order to successfully rebut it.

If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is so much of it so hostile to life? Considering the utter vastness of the universe, finding a planet teaming with life is not really surprising. We do not know what may be happening elsewhere in the universe. But the rarer life might be in the cosmos, despite it being supposedly fine-tuned for life, the more life would seem to be an accidental side effect and not the purpose of anything. But the more widespread life might be in the cosmos the less important this planet would seem to be in the big picture, making any religion claiming us to be special irrelevant at the cosmic scale.

Bottom line: The fine-tuned argument does not really further the agenda of those who push it the most.

[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?

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.

Well put. The argument just seems to be blatantly begging the question. If we assume that there exists God, to whom life has special significance, then clearly the rational conclusion is that he created a life-permitting universe purposefully and didn't just "roll a dice" and get lucky. Without that hidden assumption it's hard to see how the argument gets off the ground.

In the light of this observation, it is hard to understand why so many opponents of the argument find it so convincing that they feel the need to appeal to things like multiverse in order to successfully rebut it.

If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is so much of it so hostile to life? Considering the utter vastness of the universe, finding a planet teaming with life is not really surprising. We do not know what may be happening elsewhere in the universe. But the rarer life might be in the cosmos, despite it being supposedly fine-tuned for life, the more life would seem to be an accidental side effect and not the purpose of anything. But the more widespread life might be in the cosmos the less important this planet would seem to be in the big picture, making any religion claiming us to be special irrelevant at the cosmic scale.

Well, perhaps the universe is fine-tuned to facilitate a single planet sustaining life. I don't think that's what is wrong with the argument.

[Ancient of Years]

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.

Well put. The argument just seems to be blatantly begging the question. If we assume that there exists God, to whom life has special significance, then clearly the rational conclusion is that he created a life-permitting universe purposefully and didn't just "roll a dice" and get lucky. Without that hidden assumption it's hard to see how the argument gets off the ground.

In the light of this observation, it is hard to understand why so many opponents of the argument find it so convincing that they feel the need to appeal to things like multiverse in order to successfully rebut it.

If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is so much of it so hostile to life? Considering the utter vastness of the universe, finding a planet teaming with life is not really surprising. We do not know what may be happening elsewhere in the universe. But the rarer life might be in the cosmos, despite it being supposedly fine-tuned for life, the more life would seem to be an accidental side effect and not the purpose of anything. But the more widespread life might be in the cosmos the less important this planet would seem to be in the big picture, making any religion claiming us to be special irrelevant at the cosmic scale.

Well, perhaps the universe is fine-tuned to facilitate a single planet sustaining life. I don't think that's what is wrong with the argument.

It took all that universe and billions of years to come up with one planet with life on it? What happened to omnipotence?

[instantc]

It took all that universe and billions of years to come up with one planet with life on it? What happened to omnipotence?

Maybe he wanted to watch the process unfold. What difference would it make for someone with unlimited time and resources?

[Ancient of Years]

It took all that universe and billions of years to come up with one planet with life on it? What happened to omnipotence?

Maybe he wanted to watch the process unfold. What difference would it make for someone with unlimited time and resources?

So God liked looking at how stars and galaxies evolved. I can understand that. It is clearly what the universe is fine-tuned for rather than life, which seems to be a rare side effect.

[instantc]

It took all that universe and billions of years to come up with one planet with life on it? What happened to omnipotence?

Maybe he wanted to watch the process unfold. What difference would it make for someone with unlimited time and resources?

So God liked looking at how stars and galaxies evolved. I can understand that. It is clearly what the universe is fine-tuned for rather than life, which seems to be a rare side effect.

I think you have slightly misunderstood the argument. It is not the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but rather that the constants of our universe are fine-tuned to facilitate life, which they are, but there is nothing "amazing" about that.

[Ancient of Years]

It took all that universe and billions of years to come up with one planet with life on it? What happened to omnipotence?

Maybe he wanted to watch the process unfold. What difference would it make for someone with unlimited time and resources?

So God liked looking at how stars and galaxies evolved. I can understand that. It is clearly what the universe is fine-tuned for rather than life, which seems to be a rare side effect.

I think you have slightly misunderstood the argument. It is not the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but rather that the constants of our universe are fine-tuned to facilitate life, which they are, but there is nothing "amazing" about that.

Understood. The particular context I was addressing was a hypothetical creator entity who deliberately fine tuned the universe to make life, the usual implication of fine tuning arguments.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to instantc]

So, this way, you can make the claim that the universe is capable of life whether it exists or not. When the Sun supernovas and destroys earth and possibly all the life the universe contains, fine tuning can still be argued..... kinda, but not really, cause anything capable of arguing will be dead.

[instantc]

It took all that universe and billions of years to come up with one planet with life on it? What happened to omnipotence?

Maybe he wanted to watch the process unfold. What difference would it make for someone with unlimited time and resources?

So God liked looking at how stars and galaxies evolved. I can understand that. It is clearly what the universe is fine-tuned for rather than life, which seems to be a rare side effect.

I think you have slightly misunderstood the argument. It is not the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but rather that the constants of our universe are fine-tuned to facilitate life, which they are, but there is nothing "amazing" about that.

Understood. The particular context I was addressing was a hypothetical creator entity who deliberately fine tuned the universe to make life, the usual implication of fine tuning arguments.

Well, I don't think that in order to succeed, a theist would have to claim that God created the universe just to make life. Even if he had other goals like watching the stars and life unfold, the fact that the constants are fine-tuned to facilitate life still exists.