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
Arguments and evidence for deism, theism, and miracles
Moderator: Moderators
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #131
Yes. Either implicitly or explicitly.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Is "a number which could be either even or odd" a good definition of "an even number"?
Is "a cake that was either baked by grandma or by someone other than grandma" a good definition of "a cake baked by grandma"?
Is "An event which could have been caused either by fine-tuning or by random blind chance", a good definition of "a fine tuned event"?
The answer is no to all three, right?
And yet, the implicit premises of your argument are that an event which was either caused by fine tuning or by blind random chance... was fine tuned. As long as a dog peed on it billions of years later, or a person found it preferable, or a bird used it as part of its nest, or whatever.
The notion that a future intelligence can retroactively cause a random event in the distant past to become fine-tuned by virtue of noticing that the random event happened, is absurd.
"1 million people buy a lottery ticket. The winning ticket is selected AT RANDOM. The RANDOM person who RANDOMLY wins observes and enjoys that he won, therefore the RANDOM event qualifies as a fine-tuned event. RANDOM = Fine-tuned (as long as somebody at some point in the future finds that RANDOM event pleasing)." Laughable. Absurd. Completely and utterly meaningless.
Clearly, to make any sense at all and to distinguish fin-tuning from random blind chance, fine-tuning must presuppose an intelligent entity preferring X to not-X, AT THE TIME X BEGINS TO EXIST.
Unfortunately for you, the necessity not to make your argument meaningless causes your argument to be circular. You're stuck between a rock and a hard place, buddy.
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #132
An event happened RIGHT NOW. At 2:23AM Eastern Standard Time. Let's call it Event X.
We don't know much about event X, but we do know this: It was either caused by fine-tuning, or it was not caused by fine-tuning (e.g. it was caused by blind chance).
Do you agree with the following statement: Nothing that can happen 10 years from now can change what caused Event X. If Event X was caused by fine-tuning, then nothing that anybody can do in the far future, no natural event in the far future, nothing whatsoever in the far future can change the present and make it so that Event X was not caused by fine-tuning. Similarly, if Event X was NOT caused by fine tuning, nothing that will happen in the future can change the present and make it so that Event X was caused by fine-tuning.
Future events which are downstream of event X in the causal chain CANNOT have any effect whatsoever on Event X.
The future CANNOT affect the present. That would be a violation of the basic principle of cause and effect.
The cause causes the effect. The effect cannot affect the cause.
Therefore:
If we are required to presuppose the presence of intelligence in order for fine-tuning to happen, then of logical necessity we are required to presuppose that INTELLIGENCE MUST BE PRESENT WHEN FINE TUNING HAPPENS.
To say that intelligence exists at a time other than when an event happens, is to say that intelligence does not exist when the event happens. If intelligence doesn't exist when the event happens, then fine tuning is not possible when the event happens.
If intelligence only shows up in the future, then it isn't there in the present. If intelligence is not there in the present, then fine-tuning cannot happen in the present.
The physical constants were caused to be what they are some time 13.8 billion years ago. What happened AFTER that CANNOT have an effect on that event. Whether the physical constants were fine-tuned or not depends on whether intelligence was there or not 13.8 billion years ago. The fact that intelligence showed up a few billion years later is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Subsequent life cannot possibly have any bearing, or affect in any way, the setting of the physical constants that caused life in the first place.
Life on earth has no more power to affect whether the physical constants were fine-tuned, than you have the power to affect what position your parents had sex in on the night you were conceived.
That which does not exist yet cannot have an impact on that which will eventually cause it to exist.
If fine-tuning presupposes the presence of intelligence (which it does by your admission) then it MUST presuppose the presence of intelligence at the time that fine-tuning happened.
If intelligence isn't there when an event happens... THEN INTELLIGENCE ISN'T THERE WHEN THE EVENT HAPPENS! Come on!
How is it even possible that we're still discussing this? Concede already!
We don't know much about event X, but we do know this: It was either caused by fine-tuning, or it was not caused by fine-tuning (e.g. it was caused by blind chance).
Do you agree with the following statement: Nothing that can happen 10 years from now can change what caused Event X. If Event X was caused by fine-tuning, then nothing that anybody can do in the far future, no natural event in the far future, nothing whatsoever in the far future can change the present and make it so that Event X was not caused by fine-tuning. Similarly, if Event X was NOT caused by fine tuning, nothing that will happen in the future can change the present and make it so that Event X was caused by fine-tuning.
Future events which are downstream of event X in the causal chain CANNOT have any effect whatsoever on Event X.
The future CANNOT affect the present. That would be a violation of the basic principle of cause and effect.
The cause causes the effect. The effect cannot affect the cause.
Therefore:
If we are required to presuppose the presence of intelligence in order for fine-tuning to happen, then of logical necessity we are required to presuppose that INTELLIGENCE MUST BE PRESENT WHEN FINE TUNING HAPPENS.
To say that intelligence exists at a time other than when an event happens, is to say that intelligence does not exist when the event happens. If intelligence doesn't exist when the event happens, then fine tuning is not possible when the event happens.
If intelligence only shows up in the future, then it isn't there in the present. If intelligence is not there in the present, then fine-tuning cannot happen in the present.
The physical constants were caused to be what they are some time 13.8 billion years ago. What happened AFTER that CANNOT have an effect on that event. Whether the physical constants were fine-tuned or not depends on whether intelligence was there or not 13.8 billion years ago. The fact that intelligence showed up a few billion years later is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Subsequent life cannot possibly have any bearing, or affect in any way, the setting of the physical constants that caused life in the first place.
Life on earth has no more power to affect whether the physical constants were fine-tuned, than you have the power to affect what position your parents had sex in on the night you were conceived.
That which does not exist yet cannot have an impact on that which will eventually cause it to exist.
If fine-tuning presupposes the presence of intelligence (which it does by your admission) then it MUST presuppose the presence of intelligence at the time that fine-tuning happened.
If intelligence isn't there when an event happens... THEN INTELLIGENCE ISN'T THERE WHEN THE EVENT HAPPENS! Come on!
How is it even possible that we're still discussing this? Concede already!
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #133
I thought of yet another way of putting it:
We already agreed that fine-tuning presupposes the existence of an entity that prefers something over something else.
A foundational implicit premise of fine tuning is that the thing which exists (object A) is preferable to alternatives, and a foundational implicit premise of something being preferable is that an intelligent entity capable of having a preference exists. Therefore for fine-tuning to be even considered, we must presuppose an entity capable of having a preference.
Another foundational premise of fine tuning is that the intelligent entity which prefers object A to its alternatives, ALSO HAS THE ABILITY TO cause object A to happen.
Assume there is a car. In order to even begin to entertain the notion that it was fine-tuned, we have to make two assumptions: Somebody exists who prefers driving to walking, and somebody exists WHO IS ABLE TO BUILD A CAR. A monkey might prefer moving quickly to moving slowly, and hence prefer a car, but a monkey cannot build a car. Therefore if all that existed in the world was monkeys, fine-tuned cars would not exist. Right?
Please confirm you agree.
So, with regards to the physical constants, before we can even begin to entertain the notion that they were fine-tuned, we have to make two assumptions: Somebody exists who prefers a universe conducive to life, and somebody exist WHO IS ABLE TO CREATE A UNIVERSE CONDUCIVE TO LIFE.
Can fine-tuning happen if there definitely isn't anybody there capable of fine-tuning? No, right? Therefore one of the implicit assumptions of fine-tuning is the existence of somebody capable of fine-tuning the object in question.
Your argument looks like this:
1) An intelligent entity capable of causing a universe conducive to life exists
2) Therefore the argument from fine-tuning is viable
3) Therefore an intelligent entity capable of causing a universe conducive to life exists
I earnestly hope you get it. I can think of only so many ways of stating the obvious and the logically irrefutable.
We already agreed that fine-tuning presupposes the existence of an entity that prefers something over something else.
A foundational implicit premise of fine tuning is that the thing which exists (object A) is preferable to alternatives, and a foundational implicit premise of something being preferable is that an intelligent entity capable of having a preference exists. Therefore for fine-tuning to be even considered, we must presuppose an entity capable of having a preference.
Another foundational premise of fine tuning is that the intelligent entity which prefers object A to its alternatives, ALSO HAS THE ABILITY TO cause object A to happen.
Assume there is a car. In order to even begin to entertain the notion that it was fine-tuned, we have to make two assumptions: Somebody exists who prefers driving to walking, and somebody exists WHO IS ABLE TO BUILD A CAR. A monkey might prefer moving quickly to moving slowly, and hence prefer a car, but a monkey cannot build a car. Therefore if all that existed in the world was monkeys, fine-tuned cars would not exist. Right?
Please confirm you agree.
So, with regards to the physical constants, before we can even begin to entertain the notion that they were fine-tuned, we have to make two assumptions: Somebody exists who prefers a universe conducive to life, and somebody exist WHO IS ABLE TO CREATE A UNIVERSE CONDUCIVE TO LIFE.
Can fine-tuning happen if there definitely isn't anybody there capable of fine-tuning? No, right? Therefore one of the implicit assumptions of fine-tuning is the existence of somebody capable of fine-tuning the object in question.
Your argument looks like this:
1) An intelligent entity capable of causing a universe conducive to life exists
2) Therefore the argument from fine-tuning is viable
3) Therefore an intelligent entity capable of causing a universe conducive to life exists
I earnestly hope you get it. I can think of only so many ways of stating the obvious and the logically irrefutable.
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #134
1) Everything which began to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore the universe has a cause
4) If this cause is an intelligent being which prefers life to non-life and has the ability to create a universe in accordance with that preference, then we can start contemplating the possibility that the universe was fine-tuned by this entity which has the required attributes, and see where that argument takes us
5) If this cause was NOT an intelligent being which prefers life to non-life and has the ability to create the universe according to that preference, then the argument form fine-tuning must be discarded before we even begin contemplating it, because in the absence of such an intelligent being fine-tuning is impossible, much like the fine-tuning of a car is impossible in the absence of intelligent beings with the desire and ability to build one.
7) Therefore the argument from fine tuning presupposes the existence of an intelligent being with the power to create the universe, existing outside the universe.
8) The argument from fine tuning presupposes its conclusion, therefore it's circular and meaningless.
Oliver, are we almost done with this? Repeatedly stating the irrefutable gets boring real quick.
Do you have any other arguments for God? Maybe the one from morality?
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore the universe has a cause
4) If this cause is an intelligent being which prefers life to non-life and has the ability to create a universe in accordance with that preference, then we can start contemplating the possibility that the universe was fine-tuned by this entity which has the required attributes, and see where that argument takes us
5) If this cause was NOT an intelligent being which prefers life to non-life and has the ability to create the universe according to that preference, then the argument form fine-tuning must be discarded before we even begin contemplating it, because in the absence of such an intelligent being fine-tuning is impossible, much like the fine-tuning of a car is impossible in the absence of intelligent beings with the desire and ability to build one.
7) Therefore the argument from fine tuning presupposes the existence of an intelligent being with the power to create the universe, existing outside the universe.
8) The argument from fine tuning presupposes its conclusion, therefore it's circular and meaningless.
Oliver, are we almost done with this? Repeatedly stating the irrefutable gets boring real quick.
Do you have any other arguments for God? Maybe the one from morality?
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20594
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Post #135
Where did I ever say that was the definition of fine-tuning?no evidence no belief wrote: Your new definition of fine-tuning is this "Something that was not necessarily fine-tuned, but which somebody in the distant future finds preferable to alternatives".
OK, good.no evidence no belief wrote:Yes. Either implicitly or explicitly.
Then what that means is that Richard Feynman and all the other people who say that fine-tuning is a problem accepts the assumption that life is better than non-life. It also means that if I present other articles saying that fine-tuning is a problem in regards to other constants, then they also confirm the assumption that life is better than non-life.
It's either fine-tuned or appears to be fine-tuned.And yet, the implicit premises of your argument are that an event which was either caused by fine tuning or by blind random chance... was fine tuned.
Who says that is how it happened?The notion that a future intelligence can retroactively cause a random event in the distant past to become fine-tuned by virtue of noticing that the random event happened, is absurd.
Just because we see an arrow in a bullseye did not retroactively cause the archer to be able to hit the bullseye.
False analogy, unless you posit 1 million universes. If there's only one person that buys a lottery ticket and that person wins when the odds are extremely remote, then it is better explained by a rigged system."1 million people buy a lottery ticket. The winning ticket is selected AT RANDOM. The RANDOM person who RANDOMLY wins observes and enjoys that he won, therefore the RANDOM event qualifies as a fine-tuned event. RANDOM = Fine-tuned (as long as somebody at some point in the future finds that RANDOM event pleasing)." Laughable. Absurd. Completely and utterly meaningless.
Yes, I agree with that. But, actually, some scientists do not believe that.no evidence no belief wrote: Future events which are downstream of event X in the causal chain CANNOT have any effect whatsoever on Event X.
Actually, I would agree with you. But, again, scientists do not believe that. Actually, many scientists do not believe that. What they believe is that chance is the explanation for the appearance of fine-tuning.If we are required to presuppose the presence of intelligence in order for fine-tuning to happen, then of logical necessity we are required to presuppose that INTELLIGENCE MUST BE PRESENT WHEN FINE TUNING HAPPENS.
The only thing I agree to is that it requires an intelligent observer to make the observation that the universe appears fine-tuned.no evidence no belief wrote: We already agreed that fine-tuning presupposes the existence of an entity that prefers something over something else.
This I do not agree with.Another foundational premise of fine tuning is that the intelligent entity which prefers object A to its alternatives, ALSO HAS THE ABILITY TO cause object A to happen.
Scientists who say that the universe appears fine-tuned would not accept that somebody existed to build the car/universe.Assume there is a car. In order to even begin to entertain the notion that it was fine-tuned, we have to make two assumptions: Somebody exists who prefers driving to walking, and somebody exists WHO IS ABLE TO BUILD A CAR. A monkey might prefer moving quickly to moving slowly, and hence prefer a car, but a monkey cannot build a car. Therefore if all that existed in the world was monkeys, fine-tuned cars would not exist. Right?
I've already said this many times. The fine-tuning argument does not assume that a creator exists.So, with regards to the physical constants, before we can even begin to entertain the notion that they were fine-tuned, we have to make two assumptions: Somebody exists who prefers a universe conducive to life, and somebody exist WHO IS ABLE TO CREATE A UNIVERSE CONDUCIVE TO LIFE.
You keep on saying this, but it is a false assertion. Let me ask you this, provide a reputable reference to anyone who says fine-tuning is a problem that also makes the assumption that a creator god exists.Your argument looks like this:
1) An intelligent entity capable of causing a universe conducive to life exists
2) Therefore the argument from fine-tuning is viable
3) Therefore an intelligent entity capable of causing a universe conducive to life exists
I earnestly hope you get it. I can think of only so many ways of stating the obvious and the logically irrefutable.
Look, I asked you in post 103 to offer alternative explanations to God for fine-tuning. You have yet to do this. But instead, you are the one repeatedly making accusations of circular reasoning which only you have presented. You have not shown where I have made any circular reasoning. But more importantly, you have not demonstrated how any of the articles I presented in post 110 about the fine-structure constant has circular reasoning. Once we can get past this, then I'll be offering more constants that exhibit fine-tuning.no evidence no belief wrote: Oliver, are we almost done with this? Repeatedly stating the irrefutable gets boring real quick.
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #136
[Replying to otseng]
Oliver, there must be a fundamental misunderstanding here. What you are saying makes no sense to me, and what I'm saying clearly makes no sense to you. We're both smart guys. Let's just slowly and patiently go through the basics of this and try to figure out what we're missing. Please stop me the minute anything I say below makes anything less than 100% sense to you, and please answer my questions further below in a spirit of helping me understand.
The physical constants are the way they are, and as a result, the universe is the way it is.
Had the physical constants been different, the universe would be different.
The physical constants being the way they are, some things are possible in the universe, and others are not.
If the constants had been different, some of the things that are possible in our universe would not be possible, and some which are impossible would be possible.
Set of constants A makes phenomenon X possible and phenomenon Y impossible
Set of constants B makes phenomenon X impossible and phenomenon Y possible.
When you say "the universe is fine tuned for life" are you basically saying "Set of constants A makes phenomenon X possible"?
If so, how is that different or in any way more noteworthy than "Set of constants B makes phenomenon Y possible"? Or "Set of constants C makes phenomenon Z possible"?
Is there any set of physical constants which could not be said to be fine tuned to produce.... whatever it is that they produce?
Oliver, there must be a fundamental misunderstanding here. What you are saying makes no sense to me, and what I'm saying clearly makes no sense to you. We're both smart guys. Let's just slowly and patiently go through the basics of this and try to figure out what we're missing. Please stop me the minute anything I say below makes anything less than 100% sense to you, and please answer my questions further below in a spirit of helping me understand.
The physical constants are the way they are, and as a result, the universe is the way it is.
Had the physical constants been different, the universe would be different.
The physical constants being the way they are, some things are possible in the universe, and others are not.
If the constants had been different, some of the things that are possible in our universe would not be possible, and some which are impossible would be possible.
Set of constants A makes phenomenon X possible and phenomenon Y impossible
Set of constants B makes phenomenon X impossible and phenomenon Y possible.
When you say "the universe is fine tuned for life" are you basically saying "Set of constants A makes phenomenon X possible"?
If so, how is that different or in any way more noteworthy than "Set of constants B makes phenomenon Y possible"? Or "Set of constants C makes phenomenon Z possible"?
Is there any set of physical constants which could not be said to be fine tuned to produce.... whatever it is that they produce?
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20594
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Post #137
The first step is to agree to definitions and the problem statement. Instead of offering your own definition and problem statement, can you offer a reputable definition of fine-tuning and what the problem entails?no evidence no belief wrote: Let's just slowly and patiently go through the basics of this and try to figure out what we're missing.
I had already offered one in in post 103 from Wikipedia. That source can hardly be accused of being biased towards Christianity or even Deism, so it is as neutral a starting point as one can get. If you have another reputable source other than Wikipedia, you are free to present it.
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #138
[Replying to otseng]
I don't object to using the definition you provided:
"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"
Its a pretty straight forward and uncontroversial statement of fact.
There are two things I don't understand.
1) How is that statement from wikipedia different from my description of the situation from my previous post? It really seems to me that the wikipedia definition truly boils down to this: "The physical constants are the way they are, and as a result, the universe is the way it is. Had the physical constants been different, the universe would be different". Granted that for the sake of conciseness, I'm omitting details, but am I subtracting or adding anything to the fundamental concept by phrasing it the way I do?
2) How is this an argument for anything? Things are the way they are as opposed to being the way they are not, as a result of that which caused them being the way it is as opposed to the way it's not. So? I promise that I am not being difficult, or pretending to not understand as a tactic to force you to defend your position, or anything like that. I truly don't understand. "If the universe wasn't suitable for life, life wouldn't be in it". So what? What are you trying to say?
I don't object to using the definition you provided:
"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"
Its a pretty straight forward and uncontroversial statement of fact.
There are two things I don't understand.
1) How is that statement from wikipedia different from my description of the situation from my previous post? It really seems to me that the wikipedia definition truly boils down to this: "The physical constants are the way they are, and as a result, the universe is the way it is. Had the physical constants been different, the universe would be different". Granted that for the sake of conciseness, I'm omitting details, but am I subtracting or adding anything to the fundamental concept by phrasing it the way I do?
2) How is this an argument for anything? Things are the way they are as opposed to being the way they are not, as a result of that which caused them being the way it is as opposed to the way it's not. So? I promise that I am not being difficult, or pretending to not understand as a tactic to force you to defend your position, or anything like that. I truly don't understand. "If the universe wasn't suitable for life, life wouldn't be in it". So what? What are you trying to say?
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20594
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Post #139
OK, good.no evidence no belief wrote: [Replying to otseng]
I don't object to using the definition you provided:
"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."
Yes, you are omitting details, namely, "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." It is not simply a matter of being different.1) How is that statement from wikipedia different from my description of the situation from my previous post? It really seems to me that the wikipedia definition truly boils down to this: "The physical constants are the way they are, and as a result, the universe is the way it is. Had the physical constants been different, the universe would be different". Granted that for the sake of conciseness, I'm omitting details, but am I subtracting or adding anything to the fundamental concept by phrasing it the way I do?
The problem is what can account for the apparent fine-tuning.2) How is this an argument for anything? Things are the way they are as opposed to being the way they are not, as a result of that which caused them being the way it is as opposed to the way it's not.
I've offered one explanation already - an intelligent creator fine-tuned the parameters that allowed for the development of matter, astronomical structures, elements, and life.
Now, if you do not offer any other explanation and simply say, "So what that the universe is fine-tuned?", then that is not offering a competing explanation. Therefore, by default, an intelligent creator is the best explanation for fine-tuning.
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #140
This is where I get lost and don't understand what you're saying anymore.otseng wrote:OK, good.no evidence no belief wrote: [Replying to otseng]
I don't object to using the definition you provided:
"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."
Yes, you are omitting details, namely, "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." It is not simply a matter of being different.1) How is that statement from wikipedia different from my description of the situation from my previous post? It really seems to me that the wikipedia definition truly boils down to this: "The physical constants are the way they are, and as a result, the universe is the way it is. Had the physical constants been different, the universe would be different". Granted that for the sake of conciseness, I'm omitting details, but am I subtracting or adding anything to the fundamental concept by phrasing it the way I do?
Could you elaborate on the concept that life is not "just different" from non-life? That there is "more to it" than just being different? That "it's not simply a matter of being different"? What do you mean by that?
Let me tell you a little more about where my puzzlement comes from: Assume the physical constants were such that they were conducive to a universe consisting of 100% pure hydrogen and nothing else.
In that case, the argument from fine-tuning as defined on wikipedia could be phrased like this:
"The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow 100% pure hydrogen 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 100% pure hydrogen".
If that, hypothetically, were your argument, I'd ask you this: "Ok, if the constants weren't such that the universe were pure hydrogen, they would be such that the universe was NOT pure hydrogen. So what? If the universe weren't as it is, it would be different".
Would you then reply by saying that it's not just a matter of being different? Is there some special significance to pure hydrogen that is lost in the presence of helium, for example? What is there about life vs non-life, that there isn't about pure hydrogen vs not pure hydrogen?
I have to tell you, what I'm hearing from you is this "The universe is the way it is and it's not the way it's not, therefore goddidit". Please walk me through your position as though I was a five year old. Really spell it out. I MUST be missing a crucial step in your argument, it makes no sense the we are unable to figure this out.
