Arguments and evidence for deism, theism, and miracles

[otseng]

We have agreed to debate the following:

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of a deistic God?

And if so, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a theistic worldview whereby this God intervenes in human affairs? Specifically, is there evidentiary justification for concluding that some claims of intervention are authentic whereas others aren't.

---

A thread has been created for followers of this debate to post comments:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24538

[otseng]

If string theory allows for timeless string vibrations then it's a viable mechanism for NIH.

I highly doubt it allows for it. But, if it can be shown that there can exist "timeless vibrations", then sure, it can be part of NIH.

- The origin of the universe can be classified as a miracle

I strongly disagree with this statement.

Yes, I know you disagree with this. That is why I listed it under "Things I assert for both IH and NIH."

This is a useless word for us, confusing, misleading and completely inapplicable to the subject matter in more ways than one.

Since the word is in thread title itself, I don't think the word is inapplicable to the subject matter. But, I'm not going to press the point that I think NIH also involves a miracle.

I don't believe there is only one universe, I don't believe there are multiple ones. I don't know yet.

OK.

- Novel explanation (only proposed by Luca)

I disagree with the notion that I'm the only person in the world who's ever thought that the universe was caused to begin existing, but that the cause wasn't God. I think every atheist in the world who accepts the big bang agrees with me.

Two things stand out that makes NIH novel. One is that methodological naturalism is false. Two is that it is timeless. All mechanistic explanations I've encountered assume methodological naturalism and that it involves time.

We clearly established that arguments from popularity are logically invalid, so it doesn't matter one iota if millions of atheists including the overwhelming majority of members of the Academy of Science agree with me, or if I'm alone in this. If evidence and logic support my claim, then it's reasonable to believe it. If not, then it's not.

I'm only listing characteristics of IH and NIH. I'm not saying that they are logical arguments for them.

In my next post, I'll move on to fine-tuning.

[no evidence no belief]

If string theory allows for timeless string vibrations then it's a viable mechanism for NIH.

I highly doubt it allows for it. But, if it can be shown that there can exist "timeless vibrations", then sure, it can be part of NIH.

- The origin of the universe can be classified as a miracle

I strongly disagree with this statement.

Yes, I know you disagree with this. That is why I listed it under "Things I assert for both IH and NIH."

This is a useless word for us, confusing, misleading and completely inapplicable to the subject matter in more ways than one.

Since the word is in thread title itself, I don't think the word is inapplicable to the subject matter. But, I'm not going to press the point that I think NIH also involves a miracle.

I don't believe there is only one universe, I don't believe there are multiple ones. I don't know yet.

OK.

- Novel explanation (only proposed by Luca)

I disagree with the notion that I'm the only person in the world who's ever thought that the universe was caused to begin existing, but that the cause wasn't God. I think every atheist in the world who accepts the big bang agrees with me.

Two things stand out that makes NIH novel. One is that methodological naturalism is false. Two is that it is timeless. All mechanistic explanations I've encountered assume methodological naturalism and that it involves time.

We clearly established that arguments from popularity are logically invalid, so it doesn't matter one iota if millions of atheists including the overwhelming majority of members of the Academy of Science agree with me, or if I'm alone in this. If evidence and logic support my claim, then it's reasonable to believe it. If not, then it's not.

I'm only listing characteristics of IH and NIH. I'm not saying that they are logical arguments for them.

In my next post, I'll move on to fine-tuning.

Sounds good.

[otseng]

Next argument is the fine-tuning argument. Here is what is meant by fine-tuning:

The fine-tuned Universe 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

I'm not going to get into the details of what those physical constants are. If need be, I can go into those, but I will assume that we accept that the universe is fine-tuned. The question then is, why is the universe fine-tuned?

Building on my first argument of the origin of the universe, I propose that a deistic god is the explanation for it. It designed the universe suitable for the eventual outcome of life, specifically human life. The fine-tuning of the universe demonstrates that the creator is intelligent and skilled.

I gave the analogy earlier of an archer. If we see arrows in the middle of a target, we can deduce that the archer is skilled. If we see multiple targets with an arrow in the middle, we have a stronger degree of confidence that the archer is very skilled. Like multiple targets, there are multiple physical constants that are fine-tuned. If even one of the parameters were different, it would prevent the development of matter, development of astronomical structures, development of elements, and the development of any life.

There is generally only one explanation given by naturalists to account for fine-tuning that I'm aware of. And I'll let NENB offer that, or he can offer his own explanation.

[no evidence no belief]

Next argument is the fine-tuning argument. Here is what is meant by fine-tuning:

The fine-tuned Universe 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

I'm not going to get into the details of what those physical constants are. If need be, I can go into those, but I will assume that we accept that the universe is fine-tuned. The question then is, why is the universe fine-tuned?

Building on my first argument of the origin of the universe, I propose that a deistic god is the explanation for it. It designed the universe suitable for the eventual outcome of life, specifically human life. The fine-tuning of the universe demonstrates that the creator is intelligent and skilled.

I gave the analogy earlier of an archer. If we see arrows in the middle of a target, we can deduce that the archer is skilled. If we see multiple targets with an arrow in the middle, we have a stronger degree of confidence that the archer is very skilled. Like multiple targets, there are multiple physical constants that are fine-tuned. If even one of the parameters were different, it would prevent the development of matter, development of astronomical structures, development of elements, and the development of any life.

There is generally only one explanation given by naturalists to account for fine-tuning that I'm aware of. And I'll let NENB offer that, or he can offer his own explanation.

Ok, before I offer any counterarguments, or alternative explanations, let me make sure we're on the same page with regards to basic facts.

Physical constants are the way they are. The universe is the way it is as a result of the physical constants being the way they are.

If the physical constants were different, the universe would be different.

If the universe were different, some of the things that happen wouldn't happen, and some of the things that wouldn't happen would happen, as it were.

Do you accept the above as a neutral and impartial description of the basic facts that your argument is based on?

Now, I have a primary counterargument which I will present as soon as we've squared out all the facts, but in the meantime let me try a couple different ones on for size. Again, these are not my central counterargument.

My first point comes in the form of a question: Do you accept or reject the fact that extremely unlikely things happen all the time, without need to posit an intelligent cause?

Second: I don't think the analogy of the archer is perfect, but it's pretty good. The gist of it is that it takes skill to hit the bullseye, and no particular skill to just shoot an arrow. That's an analogy for the notion that it takes intelligence to fine-tune physical constants to a specific goal (human society in its current state), whereas it doesn't take intelligence to create physical constants which incidentally just happen to result in the current state of affairs.

I will expand on the analogy you provided.

Imagine I walk into a long room. On one side of the room is a bow. On the other side, maybe 100 feet away, are a bunch of bullseyes drawn on the wall, with arrows in the exact center of the bullseyes.

There are two explanations I can think of for this state of affairs:

1) An extremely skilled archer walked into the room. The bullseyes were already drawn. He shot an arrow into each bullseye and then walked away. Wow! Very skilled.

2) An unskilled archer walked into the room. There are no bullseyes on the wall. He just shoots a half dozen arrows randomly, which end up in random spots on the wall, and then he walks away. Then, 30 seconds before I walk into the room, you walk in yourself and draw bullseyes around the random spots in which the arrows landed.

What I'm saying is that the essence of skill in archery is the ability to send an arrow in the location one had previously identified as his goal.

The essence of intelligence/skill in universe-building is the ability to create a universe in a way one had previously identified as his goal.

In the case of archery, the fact that the bullseye is the goal is kind of self evident. And that's where the analogy fails, because it is NOT at all self evident that the goal of the universe is us.

I think you could mount a very strong argument that if there is a bullseye and somebody is pointing a bow in its general direction, then the goal would be hitting the bullseye. Hitting it would be a success and require skill. Missing it would be a failure and would signify lack of skill.

The question is this: Are you able to mount an argument that if there is a universe, the goal is human life and human society? Isn't it unjustifiably anthropomorphic and self-serving to assume that a universe with bipeds inhabiting the surface of a rock spinning around a ball of gas constitutes a success and would require skill, whereas a universe without bipeds inhabiting the surface of a rock spinning around a ball of gas would constitute a failure and signify a lack of skill?

It's self evident that if you're an archer, hitting the bullseye is preferable to hitting 3 inches off of the bullseye.

On what basis are you asserting that if you're a universe-creator, creating a universe which can host feeble life for a few centuries before it goes extinct, is preferable to creating a massive cloud of protons?

Also, where do you draw the line? You are now saying that a universe which is 99.99999999999999999999999999% devoid of life with one tiny rock hosting a feeble biped society constitutes evidence of intelligence's involvement in the creation of the universe.

What if humanity had developed, but society had never evolved past caveman/hunter gatherer tribes? Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

What if homo sapiens hadn't emerged, or had gone extinct (which almost happened). Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

What if nothing ever emerged with a brain more complex than a squirrel? Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

What if only single-cell organism had existed? Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

What if when the gaseous cloud from a previous supernova fell onto itself and became the sun with its solar system, a bunch of planets were formed, but planet earth was a little colder than it is and thus uninhabitable by life as we know it? Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

What if the physical constants were exactly as they are, but because of totally random factors that are beyond the physical constants, the milky way galaxy was slightly different and the solar system didn't exist? Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

Hey, all these scenarios involve a universe with the same physical constants!

And what about if we go in the other direction? You say that the current state of affairs is so unlikely that it couldn't have happened by chance, it must be the product of intelligence. Well, what if I say that in order to posit an intelligent creator, the current situation is not enough. Only a universe in which a species emerges that is capable of interplanetary colonization, is sufficiently fine-tuned to allow for an intelligent creator. What if I say that only a universe with biological life capable of intergalactic travel is evidence of an intelligent creator?

Where do we draw the line, and why? It's awfully convenient that you just so happen to draw the conclusion that things precisely as they are constitute evidence of an intelligent creator, without offering a justification for that position. Please explain precisely what level of human supremacy in the universe constitutes sufficient evidence to posit an intelligent creator who created the universe with us in mind, and please explain why lesser supremacy would not be sufficient, and why greater supremacy would not be necessary.

Anything short of that, and I don't see how you can defend yourself against the notion that you're just drawing a bullseye around wherever the arrow is.

Anything short of that, and you're just saying "The universe is the way it is, if it were different it wouldn't be the way it is, therefore God did it".

[otseng]

Physical constants are the way they are. The universe is the way it is as a result of the physical constants being the way they are.

If the physical constants were different, the universe would be different.

If the universe were different, some of the things that happen wouldn't happen, and some of the things that wouldn't happen would happen, as it were.

Do you accept the above as a neutral and impartial description of the basic facts that your argument is based on?

Sure, I accept that.

My first point comes in the form of a question: Do you accept or reject the fact that extremely unlikely things happen all the time, without need to posit an intelligent cause?

Sure.

Second: I don't think the analogy of the archer is perfect, but it's pretty good. The gist of it is that it takes skill to hit the bullseye, and no particular skill to just shoot an arrow. That's an analogy for the notion that it takes intelligence to fine-tune physical constants to a specific goal (human society in its current state), whereas it doesn't take intelligence to create physical constants which incidentally just happen to result in the current state of affairs.

Yes, there are other explanations for hitting the bullseye besides the archer being skilled. Likewise, there are other explanations besides intelligence for fine-tuning.

2) An unskilled archer walked into the room. There are no bullseyes on the wall. He just shoots a half dozen arrows randomly, which end up in random spots on the wall, and then he walks away. Then, 30 seconds before I walk into the room, you walk in yourself and draw bullseyes around the random spots in which the arrows landed.

Yes, that is a possibility.

The essence of intelligence/skill in universe-building is the ability to create a universe in a way one had previously identified as his goal.

Yes, I agree with that.

In the case of archery, the fact that the bullseye is the goal is kind of self evident. And that's where the analogy fails, because it is NOT at all self evident that the goal of the universe is us.

From a naturalistic viewpoint, I would sorta agree with that. Having humans as a goal for the universe is not apparent from a naturalistic viewpoint. However, from a Christian viewpoint, it is apparent. The end goal of the the six days of creation is man (and woman).

The question is this: Are you able to mount an argument that if there is a universe, the goal is human life and human society? Isn't it unjustifiably anthropomorphic and self-serving to assume that a universe with bipeds inhabiting the surface of a rock spinning around a ball of gas constitutes a success and would require skill, whereas a universe without bipeds inhabiting the surface of a rock spinning around a ball of gas would constitute a failure and signify a lack of skill?

I'll reiterate that humans is only one goal. If the constants weren't finely tuned, the development of matter would not occur, stars and planets would not form, elements would not form, and life in general would not come about.

Also, where do you draw the line? You are now saying that a universe which is 99.99999999999999999999999999% devoid of life with one tiny rock hosting a feeble biped society constitutes evidence of intelligence's involvement in the creation of the universe.

I would claim that life only exists on earth, but we can talk about that later.

What if humanity had developed, but society had never evolved past caveman/hunter gatherer tribes? Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

The fine-tuning problem would still exist if we were all cavemen, or only squirrals existed, or life was only bacteria.

What if the physical constants were exactly as they are, but because of totally random factors that are beyond the physical constants, the milky way galaxy was slightly different and the solar system didn't exist? Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

Hey, all these scenarios involve a universe with the same physical constants!

But, your's is a hypothetical universe that does not exist. I think discussing things that do not exist is irrelevant.

And what about if we go in the other direction? You say that the current state of affairs is so unlikely that it couldn't have happened by chance, it must be the product of intelligence. Well, what if I say that in order to posit an intelligent creator, the current situation is not enough. Only a universe in which a species emerges that is capable of interplanetary colonization, is sufficiently fine-tuned to allow for an intelligent creator. What if I say that only a universe with biological life capable of intergalactic travel is evidence of an intelligent creator?

The point really is not the technological level humans are at that point to an intelligent creator. The point more is that humans exist at all indicates that the creator is intelligent. Without the fine-tuning of the constants, no sentient life could come about.

Where do we draw the line, and why? It's awfully convenient that you just so happen to draw the conclusion that things precisely as they are constitute evidence of an intelligent creator, without offering a justification for that position.

We can get to that later about why I think humans are special when I get into theism. Right now, I'm only defending deism. At this point, I'm not elevating humans above protons, nuetrons, electrons, planets, stars, galaxies. The existence of all of these things indicate fine-tuning.

Before we go further, do you accept that the universe exhibits fine-tuning of physical constants?

[no evidence no belief]

Physical constants are the way they are. The universe is the way it is as a result of the physical constants being the way they are.

If the physical constants were different, the universe would be different.

If the universe were different, some of the things that happen wouldn't happen, and some of the things that wouldn't happen would happen, as it were.

Do you accept the above as a neutral and impartial description of the basic facts that your argument is based on?

Sure, I accept that.

My first point comes in the form of a question: Do you accept or reject the fact that extremely unlikely things happen all the time, without need to posit an intelligent cause?

Sure.

Second: I don't think the analogy of the archer is perfect, but it's pretty good. The gist of it is that it takes skill to hit the bullseye, and no particular skill to just shoot an arrow. That's an analogy for the notion that it takes intelligence to fine-tune physical constants to a specific goal (human society in its current state), whereas it doesn't take intelligence to create physical constants which incidentally just happen to result in the current state of affairs.

Yes, there are other explanations for hitting the bullseye besides the archer being skilled. Likewise, there are other explanations besides intelligence for fine-tuning.

Right, it could be that the arrow is fine-tuned to the bullseye (as in a skilled archer aiming for the bullseye), or it could be that the bullseye is fine-tuned to the arrow (as in you drawing a bullseye around wherever the arrow lands which would take NO skill from the archer, since the bullseye could be drawn no matter where the arrow landed). Similarly, it could be that the physical constants are fine-tuned to the universe as it is (as in an intelligent creator aiming for human life), or it could be that the universe is fine-tuned to the physical constants (as in, the universe inevitably being the way the physical constants would require it to be - much like an arrow would inevitably be at the center of a bullseye drawn around it).

In the case of archery, the fact that the bullseye is the goal is kind of self evident. And that's where the analogy fails, because it is NOT at all self evident that the goal of the universe is us.

From a naturalistic viewpoint, I would sorta agree with that. Having humans as a goal for the universe is not apparent from a naturalistic viewpoint. However, from a Christian viewpoint, it is apparent. The end goal of the the six days of creation is man (and woman).

Before going further I would like to preemptively apologize. In the lines below I will counter a position that is so nonsensical and absurd that I'm almost certain you do not hold it. I do not mean to insult your intelligence by doing this. I am just covering all bases, because failure to air out any disagreement now, might result in a 3 week detour a few debate exchanges from now. So, again, I do not believe I am responding to a position you're holding. I'm just playing it safe.

Ok, do you agree that a logical argument CANNOT have one of its conclusions as its premise because that's a logical fallacy called circular reasoning?

In other words, do you agree that the argument below is invalid?

1) X is true
2) Y is true
3) Therefore Z is true
4) Therefore X is true

Similarly, do you agree that the argument below is invalid?

1) God exists, and is accurately described in the Bible
2) Therefore the existence of humanity (and the israelites in particular) is clearly part of a plan/goal which was hatched before the universe began to exist
3) The plan came to fruition
4) For events that span 13.8 billion years to go exactly according to plan, requires a highly intelligent designer who exists outside the universe
5) Therefore God exists

The conclusion (in red) is the starting premise, which is the conclusion, which is the premise, which is the conclusion. It's a circular argument. It doesn't get more logically fallacious than this. Do you agree?

Again, I would gladly bet a large sum that you did NOT intend to make this argument, so please do not take offense that I, by debunking this absurd circular argument, implied that you were making it.

To the contrary, I think the argument you're making is this:

The argument from fine-tuning is contingent on demonstrating that the creating agency intended - had a goal - to create the universe in a specific way as opposed to any other, much like the argument for an archer's skill is contingent on demonstrating that the archer intended to hit the bullseye and not elsewhere.

The argument from fine tuning is destroyed if we are unable to demonstrate that God was aiming for current conditions to be as they are, as opposed to being different from how they are.

The only way you have presented so far to demonstrate that God had "us" in mind when he created the universe is by demonstrating that the Bible accurately describes God.

We have not yet demonstrated that the Bible accurately describes God, therefore we cannot establish that we are part of God's plan, therefore we cannot establish that current conditions are part of a plan hatched by an intelligent creator, thus the argument from fine tuning remains unsubstantiated.

In short:

1) The argument from fine tuning is contingent on showing that our existence is part of a plan/goal
2) So far, the only way to show our existence is part of a plan is by showing the Bible is true
3) We have not yet demonstrated the Bible is true
4) Therefore we have not yet met a crucial premise of the argument from fine-tuning, and the argument remains invalid until we do.

In other words, this is what you have to demonstrate:
First, that a God exists.
Second, that he had a plan for the universe.
Third, that the universe came out as per this plan.

ALL we have in terms of facts is this: The universe is the way it is because of the physical constants. If the physical constants were different, the universe would be different.

That is not evidence that a God exists, it is not evidence that he had a plan for the universe, it is not evidence that the universe came out as per his plan.

The fact that "The universe is the way it is because of the physical constants. If the physical constants were different, the universe would be different." would still be true if God didn't exist.

The fact that "The universe is the way it is because of the physical constants. If the physical constants were different, the universe would be different." would still be true if God existed but didn't have a plan for the universe - like he just randomly created the universe without planning it ahead.

The fact that "The universe is the way it is because of the physical constants. If the physical constants were different, the universe would be different." would still be true if God existed, had a plan, but the universe didn't come out as per that plan.

The objective description of the facts that I made earlier, and which you accept above, would still remain true. The universe is the way it is because of the physical constants. If the physical constants were different, the universe would be different.

The fact that we exist rather than not existing (or the fact that the weak force is 10 to the 25 times stronger than gravity rather than 10 to the 26) has no significance whatsoever unless you establish first that our existence and a 10 to the 25 ratio between weak force and gravity, were part of a previously set goal. You agreed to this. And you admit that you cannot establish our existence being part of a plan unless Christianity is true.

Therefore the fine-tuning argument is not true unless Christianity is true.

Therefore, fine-tuning, as a standalone argument, fails. If you have other arguments for deism, please present them. Otherwise please present arguments for christian theism, and in so doing of necessity vindicate the fine-tuning argument as well.

The question is this: Are you able to mount an argument that if there is a universe, the goal is human life and human society? Isn't it unjustifiably anthropomorphic and self-serving to assume that a universe with bipeds inhabiting the surface of a rock spinning around a ball of gas constitutes a success and would require skill, whereas a universe without bipeds inhabiting the surface of a rock spinning around a ball of gas would constitute a failure and signify a lack of skill?

I'll reiterate that humans is only one goal. If the constants weren't finely tuned, the development of matter would not occur, stars and planets would not form, elements would not form, and life in general would not come about.

I appreciate that you are reiterating your assertion. But what is necessary is not for you to reiterate, but for you to back it up.

You are right that if physical constants were different, elements, stars, planets, life, reality TV, etc as we know them, would not exist. In other words you are right that if the universe were different it wouldn't be the same.

What you need to do is establish that, as per the plan of an existent creator, the "universe as it is" is preferable to the universe being different from how it is.

You've admitted above that christian theology is a way to demonstrate that. So please provide evidence and logic in support of Christianity and in so doing back up fine-tuning, or present an alternative method of establishing that the current state of affairs are part of the plan of a creator (Islam, maybe?), or concede that fine tuning is invalid.

Also, where do you draw the line? You are now saying that a universe which is 99.99999999999999999999999999% devoid of life with one tiny rock hosting a feeble biped society constitutes evidence of intelligence's involvement in the creation of the universe.

I would claim that life only exists on earth, but we can talk about that later.

I don't know one way or the other, but let's assume just for now that you are right.

In that case, the burden still remains on you to demonstrate that a universe with physical constants which are conducive to "life on earth only" is "better", "superior", preferable", "more part of a plan", "more of a goal" than a universe with physical constants which are NOT conducive to "life on earth only".

What if humanity had developed, but society had never evolved past caveman/hunter gatherer tribes? Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

The fine-tuning problem would still exist if we were all cavemen, or only squirrels existed, or life was only bacteria.

In that case, the burden still remains on you to demonstrate that a universe with physical constants which are conducive to humans, squirrels or bacteria is "better", "superior", preferable", "more part of a plan", "more of a goal" than a universe with physical constants which are NOT conducive to humans, squirrels or bacteria.

Whatever attribute of the universe you wish to allege is evidence of fine-tuning, you have to demonstrate that the attribute being different would be evidence of not-fine-tuning.

"X demonstrates Y" is only true if "Not-X demonstrates Y" is not-true.

Unless "gravity being the way it is" is demonstrated to support fine-tuning more than "gravity being a different way", then you got nothing! "Gravity being X is fine-tuned to the universe behaving in way Y" is no more true than "Gravity being not-X is fine-tuned to the universe behaving in way not-Y", right?

What if the physical constants were exactly as they are, but because of totally random factors that are beyond the physical constants, the milky way galaxy was slightly different and the solar system didn't exist? Would that still be evidence of an intelligent creator?

Hey, all these scenarios involve a universe with the same physical constants!

But, your's is a hypothetical universe that does not exist. I think discussing things that do not exist is irrelevant.

The universe exists in accordance to physical constants. If the constants were different, the universe would be different. That's a fact you accepted as neutrally descriptive of the foundational axioms of your argument. I don't understand why now you're trying to evade this fact by saying it's irrelevant.

The universe is the way it is. If it weren't the way it is, it would be a different way.

Can you please explain what's so special about the universe being the way it is rather than different?

Can you please explain why physical constants are evidence of fine tuning, but if they were different they wouldn't be evidence of fine tuning?

And what about if we go in the other direction? You say that the current state of affairs is so unlikely that it couldn't have happened by chance, it must be the product of intelligence. Well, what if I say that in order to posit an intelligent creator, the current situation is not enough. Only a universe in which a species emerges that is capable of interplanetary colonization, is sufficiently fine-tuned to allow for an intelligent creator. What if I say that only a universe with biological life capable of intergalactic travel is evidence of an intelligent creator?

The point really is not the technological level humans are at that point to an intelligent creator. The point more is that humans exist at all indicates that the creator is intelligent. Without the fine-tuning of the constants, no sentient life could come about.

Right. Physical constants being the way they are, result in the universe being the way it is. If they were different, the universe would be different.

On what basis do you go from "A is different from B" to "A is preferable to B"?

The argument from "archer's skill" only works if it's established that hitting the bullseye is preferable to missing the bullseye.

The argument from fine tuning only works if it's established that physical constants conducive to life are preferable to physical constants NOT conducive to life.

The problem is that you haven't established that physical constants conducive to life are preferable to physical constants conducive to, say, a timeless filament of neutrinos along the axis of a super-massive singularity.

On what basis would you deny that a timeless filament of neutrinos wouldn't be preferable to an outside observer, because of its beauty, intensity and simplicity, to a bland cold vacuum occasionally interrupted by balls of gas, and a tiny insignificant cooling rock with a film of gas coating it, and insignificant short lived organisms on it, stoning homosexuals to death.

Where do we draw the line, and why? It's awfully convenient that you just so happen to draw the conclusion that things precisely as they are constitute evidence of an intelligent creator, without offering a justification for that position.

We can get to that later about why I think humans are special when I get into theism. Right now, I'm only defending deism. At this point, I'm not elevating humans above protons, nuetrons, electrons, planets, stars, galaxies. The existence of all of these things indicate fine-tuning.

Why? If the universe weren't the way it is, it would be some other way. Why is any particular "way the universe could be" preferential, special or noteworthy in any way?

Before we go further, do you accept that the universe exhibits fine-tuning of physical constants?

No. Physical constants are the way they are. If they were different, they would generate a universe that is also different. What's the big deal?

Here's an apt analogy:

An average ejaculate contains about 100 million sperm cells.

Steve is the result of one of those sperm cells from his dad fertilizing one of his mom's eggs.

Now, if conditions right before fertilization were even SLIGHTLY different (like if for example Steve's parents had had sex in a different position, or if his mom had stood up afterwards instead of remaining in bed, or whatever), a different sperm cells could have fertilized the egg, resulting is a completely different person being born, with different gender, different life expectancy, different features throughout.

Is it reasonable to say that, because a slight difference in conditions at fertilization would have resulted in a completely different person 30 years later, therefore that sexual intercourse was fine-tuned to specifically causing one specific sperm cell to fertilize the egg, rather than one of the 100 million others?

Of course not! Steve is the person that he is because sperm number 83,929,893 fertilized the egg. If a different sperm had gotten to the egg first, then a different person would have existed. The universe is the way it is because it has the physical constants that it has. If physical constants were different, then the universe would be different.

Two people getting it on is no more "fine-tuned" to sperm number 83,929,893 fertilizing the egg and causing Steve, than it would be "fine-tuned" to a different sperm fertilizing the egg and causing a different person to be born.

Physical constants X, Y and Z are no more "fine-tuned" to the universe being as it is, than different physical constants would be "fine-tuned" to a different universe.

I don't get it. Why is "things being the way they are rather than the way they are not" evidence of intelligence being involved?

[otseng]

Before we go further, do you accept that the universe exhibits fine-tuning of physical constants?

No. Physical constants are the way they are. If they were different, they would generate a universe that is also different. What's the big deal?

We need to address this first before discussing any of the other things you raised. If you don't accept that the universe exhibits fine-tuning, then the discussion of fine-tuning only in the context of IH is pointless.

Here is the overall argument I'll be making in regards to fine-tuning:

1. The universe exhibits fine-tuning.
2. There are X reasons to account for fine-tuning.
3. The X reasons are:

• a. IH
  b. Explanation E1
  c. Explanation E2
  d. Explanation En

4. IH better accounts for fine-tuning than any other explanation.
5. Therefore IH is the most reasonable explanation for fine-tuning.

You seem to imply that you have no other explanation, so your only recourse is to reject premise 1.

If you don't accept premise 1, then I'll need to build a case that premise 1 is true and why it is a big deal.

[no evidence no belief]

Before we go further, do you accept that the universe exhibits fine-tuning of physical constants?

No. Physical constants are the way they are. If they were different, they would generate a universe that is also different. What's the big deal?

We need to address this first before discussing any of the other things you raised. If you don't accept that the universe exhibits fine-tuning, then the discussion of fine-tuning only in the context of IH is pointless.

Here is the overall argument I'll be making in regards to fine-tuning:

1. The universe exhibits fine-tuning.
2. There are X reasons to account for fine-tuning.
3. The X reasons are:

• a. IH
  b. Explanation E1
  c. Explanation E2
  d. Explanation En

4. IH better accounts for fine-tuning than any other explanation.
5. Therefore IH is the most reasonable explanation for fine-tuning.

You seem to imply that you have no other explanation, so your only recourse is to reject premise 1.

If you don't accept premise 1, then I'll need to build a case that premise 1 is true and why it is a big deal.

Hey Otseng. None of what I've been discussing is my primary counterargument, so I'm glad we're still ironing out the basic axioms.

Yes, I contest (or rather, don't understand exactly what you mean by) the first premise.

It seems to me that the situation is simple. The physical constants are the way they are, and the universe is the way it is as a result of that. If the constants were different, the universe would as a result be different as well. This is a basic fact you agreed to from the start.

You have also already agreed that fine tuning is only an applicable concept if it can be demonstrated that somebody had the goal of creating the universe as it is (as opposed to differently), and set the physical constants in a specific way with that goal in mind.

In short, you can only posit fine-tuning if you can demonstrate that a result (the universe as it is) is preferable to another result, in the eyes of the creator. Much like you can only posit archer skill if you can demonstrate that hitting the bullseye is preferable - from the prospective of the archer - to missing it.

So your task is simple:
Demonstrate that premise 1 of your argument above is valid.

The only way to do so is this:
Demonstrate that God exists, that he prefers for the universe to be in one way rather than a different way, and that the "universe as it is" coincides with God's preference.

Hitting the bullseye is better than missing it, but only if the archer as an antecedent preference for hitting the bullseye. If the archer didn't prefer to hit the bullseye but hits it anyway, it isn't evidence of skill, it's just a coincidence.

The "universe as it is" is better than the universe as it isn't, but only if the creator has an antecedent preference for the universe as is. If the creator didn't prefer for the universe to be as is, but it turns out that way anyway, it isn't evidence of intelligence, it's just a coincidence.


IF an archer exists, IF he had a goal in mind when shooting the arrow, IF the goal was the bullseye, THEN hitting the bullseye is evidence of skill.

Similarly, IF God exists, if he had a goal in mind when creating the physical constants, IF the goal was the universe as is, THEN the universe as is is evidence of intelligence.

So, before we can establish an archer has skill, we must demonstrate that he exists, that he had a goal, and that the goal was the bullseye.

Similarly, before we can establish God is intelligent, we must demonstrate that he exists, that he had a goal, and that the goal was the universe as it is.

I look forward to seeing that evidence.





Let me provide a different angle on this same preliminary argument.

This is just a thought experiment, but bear with me. Imagine you were not a human being living inside the universe. Imagine you were an external observer looking at the universe coming into existence from outside of it.

In scenario A, you witness the physical constants exist as they are, and resulting in the universe as it is.

In scenario B, you witness the physical constants exist in a different way, and resulting in the universe being different.

In scenario A, you might say "Wow, if the physical constants had been even slightly different the universe [with whatever attributes it has] would be completely different.

In scenario B, you might say "Wow, if the physical constants had been even slightly different the universe [with whatever attributes it has] would be completely different.

ANY slight change in ANY set of physical constants would result in massive changes in a universe they produce. Why is this set of constants producing this universe in any way special? It seems to me that whatever an external observer could say about these constants and this universe, he could say about any set of constants and universes. There is nothing special about this universe.

If anywhere on a wall constitutes a bullseye, it doesn't take skill to hit a bullseye. In fact, the concept of a bullseye becomes meaningless.

If any set of constants causing any type of universe constitutes fine-tuning, then it doesn't take intelligence to fine-tune. In fact, the concept of fine-tuning becomes meaningless.

[no evidence no belief]

I thought of something: I will hereby argue that events leading to Mr. Smith winning the lottery are fine tuned.

The "fine-tuned lottery" is the proposition that the conditions that allow Mr. Smith to win the lottery can only occur when certain specific conditions lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several specific conditions were only slightly different, circumstances would be unlikely to be conducive to Mr Smith winning the lottery.

Do you agree or disagree with the argument above, and that the lottery is fine tuned to Mr. smith winning it?

I sincerely hope you agree with it, because the argument is the exact same one which you presented for fine tuning of the universe. Namely: "The fine-tuned Universe 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".


The way you and wikipedia define it, "fine-tuned" can be boiled down to simply mean "that which would be different if that which caused it wasn't how it is".

By that definition, can you name anything which isn't fine tuned? Anything at all? Anything which exists, anything which doesn't exist? Anything real? Anything imaginary? Anything whatsoever which isn't fine-tuned?

Please name one thing which isn't fine tuned.

[otseng]

If you don't accept premise 1, then I'll need to build a case that premise 1 is true and why it is a big deal.

Yes, I contest (or rather, don't understand exactly what you mean by) the first premise.

OK, I'll start arguing why premise 1 is true.

It seems to me that the situation is simple. The physical constants are the way they are, and the universe is the way it is as a result of that. If the constants were different, the universe would as a result be different as well. This is a basic fact you agreed to from the start.

Yes, the universe would be different if the physical constants were different. Why is that a big deal? It is not that our solar system would be in position B rather than position A or that the Milky Way would be at position C instead of D. It is that our solar system, our galaxy, would not exist at all. Basically, if the physical constants were not finely-tuned, no stars would exist, no planets would exist, no matter would exist. Yes, I'm repeating myself, but I'm not sure you're accepting this since you simply claim that the universe would just be simply different.

An analogy is a car. In order for a car to operate, all the components must be built and put together in a particular way. The argument of fine-tuning is not whether a car is a Lexus or a BMW. The cars are different, but they both still run. The argument of fine-tuning is why the car can run. What caused the engine to work? What caused the steering system to work? What caused the coolant system to work? If any of these systems did not exist, the car would not be able to operate. Each component is comparable to a physical constant. If even one physical constant was not finely tuned, the universe would not exist with stars, planets, or life.

So your task is simple:
Demonstrate that premise 1 of your argument above is valid.

The only way to do so is this:
Demonstrate that God exists, that he prefers for the universe to be in one way rather than a different way, and that the "universe as it is" coincides with God's preference.

I don't see your logic here. The only way I can reconcile your statements is that God is the only explanation for fine-tuning. Demonstrating that premise 1 is valid does not require the assumption that God exists. One can accept premise 1 without even believing in God. I had presented that when I linked to the Wikipedia article.

Let me start arguing for premise 1. The first constant I'll present is the fine-structure constant.

RICHARD FEYNMAN, Nobel laureate and physicist extraordinaire, called it a “magic number� and its value “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics�. The number he was referring to, which goes by the symbol alpha and the rather more long-winded name of the fine-structure constant, is magic indeed. If it were a mere 4% bigger or smaller than it is, stars would not be able to sustain the nuclear reactions that synthesise carbon and oxygen. One consequence would be that squishy, carbon-based life would not exist.

http://www.economist.com/node/16930866

One of the most controversial questions in cosmology is why the fundamental constants of nature seem fine-tuned for life. One of these fundamental constants is the fine-structure constant, or alpha, which is the coupling constant for the electromagnetic force and equal to about 1/137.0359. If alpha were just 4% bigger or smaller than it is, stars wouldn't be able to make carbon and oxygen, which would have made it impossible for life as we know it to exist.

http://phys.org/news202921592.html

If alpha [the fine-structure constant] were bigger than it really is, we should not be able to distinguish matter from ether [the vacuum, nothingness], and our task to disentangle the natural laws would be hopelessly difficult. The fact however that alpha has just its value 1/137 is certainly no chance but itself a law of nature. It is clear that the explanation of this number must be the central problem of natural philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_stru ... ant#Quotes

There is speculation that the fine-structure constant is not actually constant throughtout the universe, but varies at different points. But, this only strengthens the fine-tuning argument because the fine-tuning constant allows our region in space to have life.

Now, results from a new study show that alpha seems to have varied a tiny bit in different directions of the universe billions of years ago, being slightly smaller in the northern hemisphere and slightly larger in the southern hemisphere. One intriguing possible implication is that the fine-structure constant is continuously varying in space, and seems fine-tuned for life in our neighborhood of the universe.

http://phys.org/news202921592.html

Do you agree or disagree with the argument above, and that the lottery is fine tuned to Mr. smith winning it?

I assert that there is only one person who bought a lottery ticket, Mr. Smith. He only bought one ticket. And the odds of him winning was very low. With these conditions, yes, I agree that the lottery was fine-tuned for Mr. Smith to win it. In other words, if Mr Smith bought a single lottery ticket and the odds of him winning was one in a trillion and he actually did win it, then something fishy was going on that allowed him to win it.