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?

[Wootah]

I think it is all about perception. The creationist mind has to see design and fine tuning. The non creationist mind just doesn't. I see the fact that 99% of this universe is harsh toward life. Even on earth, we find it to be very harsh towards life. To me there is no fine tuning.

Here is a list of uninhabitable places on earth.

Supposing we believed you. How is this knowledge of yours impacting your life? Do you act more harshly to others as a result because the world is that way? If not why not and how do you avoid being labelled as a hypocrite for not acting as you believe?

[McCulloch]

What would be the general source of light you are referring to?

It is analogy. The guy shining a narrow beam into the pin hole is analogous to the God of the intelligent design argument. The big source of light would be some mindless process that just emits not light but universes. The fine tuning argument is used by theists to attempt to support some form of intelligent design yet it can also be used to support an undesigned universe as well.

[otseng]

What would be the general source of light you are referring to?

It is analogy. The guy shining a narrow beam into the pin hole is analogous to the God of the intelligent design argument. The big source of light would be some mindless process that just emits not light but universes.

In that case, I think it would be more parsimonious to infer a mind that produced one universe than a mindless process which emits many universes. How many other universes are there? What evidence is there for the existence of all these other universes? What evidence is there for this mindless universe creating process?

The fine tuning argument is used by theists to attempt to support some form of intelligent design yet it can also be used to support an undesigned universe as well.

The argument of fine-tuning is not required for demonstrating God's existence. It is only an additional argument to support the existence of God. There are other independent evidences for the existence of God that have nothing to do with fine-tuning.

And as far as I can tell, other universes are simply posited because of the fine-tuning problem. Without the fine-tuning problem, would people even be considering other universes?

[Nickman]

I think it is all about perception. The creationist mind has to see design and fine tuning. The non creationist mind just doesn't. I see the fact that 99% of this universe is harsh toward life. Even on earth, we find it to be very harsh towards life. To me there is no fine tuning.

Here is a list of uninhabitable places on earth.

Supposing we believed you.

believe me for what? That 99% of the universe is harsh to life? Go ahead and venture into space and see. Don't even use space equipment. Just you by your self.

How is this knowledge of yours impacting your life?

Knowledge of what?

Do you act more harshly to others as a result because the world is that way?

No

If not why not and how do you avoid being labelled as a hypocrite for not acting as you believe?

I have no clue what you mean.

[Hatuey]

It depends on what we are arguing. If we are arguing it proves God - it doesn't.

If however you want me to walk along the beach and see a watch and say,' wow what an amazing thing nature did in producing that watch.' then I feel quite securein believing in a designer did it over nature did it.

In that scenario, you are describing seeing something you KNOW to be a "designed artifact" within a landscape that you KNOW to not be a "designed artifact." (A watch on the beach). It simply doesn't work as an analogy at all. A true analogy would be for us to imagine that everything is made of watches: the beach, the shells, the animals, the grass, our bodies...and then make the statement that everything was designed.

Considering the watch analogy, though, (if it were possible), it would only tell us that some being made a machine with some intent, but it would not tell us if that being was powerful or kind or big or small or long dead. It only tells us what the mechanics of the watch infer.

You have to do a lot of work and turn a blind eye to a lot of information, that in and of themselves do not prove God, to get to the atheist position that there is no god. Looking at creation and not seeing a designer is one of them.

The atheist position is NOT "there is no god." The atheist position is "I don't believe in any gods other people have told me exist." Big difference.

Looking at 'creation' it's impossible to determine anything about a designer or not because "looking at 'creation'" is reducing your sample size to only one.

Intelligent design proponents seem to want examination of the universe to prove god's existence, but they don't seem to appreciate that an examination of the universe shows a very cold, dark, and uncaring universe that supports life through the death of previous life and life that always disintegrates and dies. All things in the universe show this same principle which is not the picture of most gods believed by humans.

[Hatuey]

In that case, I think it would be more parsimonious to infer a mind that produced one universe than a mindless process which emits many universes.

Please show why it would be more logical to infer a mind that produced one universe than a mindless process which emits many universes. Thanks.

How many other universes are there? What evidence is there for the existence of all these other universes? What evidence is there for this mindless universe creating process?

We have no idea if there even are other universes.
We have no evidence for the existence of any other universes (well, quantum physics implies it is a plausible inference to assume, but quantum mechanics is weird, so...)
We have no evidence for some mindless universe creating processes.

Just like in the case of god, there is no evidence for other universes or a process that mindlessly creates universes. The god hypotheses and the multiple universe hypotheses are all unproven, but quantum mechanics does strongly imply that there are other dimensions and perhaps other universes so scientists tend to think more along these lines than some being with a human-like mind since the universe doesn't seem particularly set up for human life when you look at the scale of the universe and the short period of time humans have existed and the coldness and darkness of the universe's process through entropy.

he argument of fine-tuning is not required for demonstrating God's existence. It is only an additional argument to support the existence of God. There are other independent evidences for the existence of God that have nothing to do with fine-tuning.

The god that "fine tuning" would support would be one that wants there to be vicious life that survives on pain and death and then experiences pain and death and slow disintegration. Sounds like a nasty god to me.

And as far as I can tell, other universes are simply posited because of the fine-tuning problem. Without the fine-tuning problem, would people even be considering other universes?

You are incorrect. "Fine tuning" isn't a "problem" because we have no idea if "fine tuning" is an actual thing. Fine tuning is as much a problem as the number Pi or E. There are interesting artifacts that arise from our universe all over the place: You are one...along with pi and the golden ratio and gamma ray bursts and eagle eyes and octopus eyes (both much better than human eyes).

Incredulity is not evidence of superior thought.

[UNBeliever905]

It depends on what we are arguing. If we are arguing it proves God - it doesn't.

If however you want me to walk along the beach and see a watch and say,' wow what an amazing thing nature did in producing that watch.' then I feel quite secure in believing in a designer did it over nature did it.

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?

God in the gaps has always been a fallacious argument against Christianity.

Christians do not expect to see God causing the material universe - we expect God caused the universe. Understanding that difference means you understand why science came from Christianity.

You have to do a lot of work and turn a blind eye to a lot of information, that in and of themselves do not prove God, to get to the atheist position that there is no god. Looking at creation and not seeing a designer is one of them.

I would love to respond to everythong but lets start with the disgustingly false argument that science came from christianity....come again?

[otseng]

Please show why it would be more logical to infer a mind that produced one universe than a mindless process which emits many universes. Thanks.

I'll address this below.

How many other universes are there? What evidence is there for the existence of all these other universes? What evidence is there for this mindless universe creating process?

We have no idea if there even are other universes.
We have no evidence for the existence of any other universes (well, quantum physics implies it is a plausible inference to assume, but quantum mechanics is weird, so...)
We have no evidence for some mindless universe creating processes.

I agree that we have no idea that there are even other universes. I also agree that there is no evidence for the existence of other universes. And I also agree that there is no evidence for a mindless process that can create other universes.

One reason the God hypothesis is more parsimonious is because there is other evidence for God's existence, whereas the mindless process hypothesis is created simply to explain fine-tuning. One does not need to create a novel explanation for fine-tuning when an existing explanation can already account for it.

Another reason it is more parsimonious is that only one universe is involved with the God hypothesis. For the mindless process hypothesis, practically an infinite number of universes is required.

A third reason is that a mindless process would share many of the attributes of God. It would have to be powerful, timeless, necessary, and exist outside the natural world.

Just like in the case of god, there is no evidence for other universes or a process that mindlessly creates universes.

I disagree that there is no evidence for God. Fine-tuning is only one evidence out of a series of evidence for God's existence (the origin of the universe being another evidence).

The god hypotheses and the multiple universe hypotheses are all unproven, but quantum mechanics does strongly imply that there are other dimensions and perhaps other universes so scientists tend to think more along these lines than some being with a human-like mind since the universe doesn't seem particularly set up for human life when you look at the scale of the universe and the short period of time humans have existed and the coldness and darkness of the universe's process through entropy.

How does quantum mechanics show that there are other dimensions or universes?

The god that "fine tuning" would support would be one that wants there to be vicious life that survives on pain and death and then experiences pain and death and slow disintegration. Sounds like a nasty god to me.

The problem of pain and suffering would be an entirely different issue.

You are incorrect. "Fine tuning" isn't a "problem" because we have no idea if "fine tuning" is an actual thing.

Do you disagree with McCulloch's statement:

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.

If you do not agree with it, please explain why McCulloch's statement is wrong.

[otseng]

I would love to respond to everythong but lets start with the disgustingly false argument that science came from christianity....come again?

Actually, it has more truth than you realize. I wouldn't go so far as to say science came from Christianity. But, it can certainly be argued that modern science arose out of the foundations laid by Christianity.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 18 by otseng]

Fine tuning is based on an invisible creator. A creator that has not been proven. It is mere perception.