Evidence for God #2

[DaveD49]

Topic for Debate: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING BEING EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
In answering please state clearly whether you agree or disagree
Your reasoning for doing so
Please rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest what you feel the strength of the evidence is.
If you have something further to add please let me know.

The exact fine-tuning of all the scientific laws and the universal constants.
Category: Mathematics and Science

In my first item of evidence i spoke about the simple existence of universal scientific laws and how they point to the existence of God. Here we are going to look at a more in-depth view of the laws and other universal constants. (A universal constant is defined in Wikipedia as "a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and have constant value in time."). The bottom line is that if these laws and constants were not exactly at the force setting there are at then either the universe could not form, that the universe would only live for a short time and then collapse in on itself, or that the universe would not be able to support life.

The existence of these constants and their fine-tuning is acknowledged by scientists who are theists as well as atheists. For that matter when it became clear at how clearly this evidence of these pointed to a creator, atheistic scientist came up with a number of pseudoscience theories such as the existence of a multiverse. The multiverse and other such theories are referred to as "pseudoscience" by many scientists because they ignore the Scientific Method of being able to provide repeatable proof. In the 1970's scientists acknowledged that there were 4 of these constants. Today they acknowledge 40+ with some scientists speculating that they could be as many as 167 of them. We are talking about the force of gravity, the cosmological constant, the electromagnetic force, the velocity of light in vacuum, the charge of the electron, the mass of the electron, Planck's constant, nuclear forces such as what they call the "strong force" and the "weak force", as well as many more. Had the strength of ANY of these forces and constants varied in the slightest the universe would not exist or not be able to support life.

When trying to explain away these forces a number or them like to use a die. This way there are only 6 possibilities so getting the setting right would be no problem. And besides with the thousands upon thousands of universes proposed by the multiverse, one of them is bound to get the settings right. However the scale is slightly larger than 1 through 6. It has been suggested that if you had a ruler which in 1/2" increments stretched across the universe most of these forces could have been set anywhere along that scale. If it were off by just 1/2" then once again the universe would never exist or not be able to support life.

In one paper titled "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" three atheistic scientist from Stanford actually when talking about the evolution of elements in the early universe that it would require a "statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures." They went on to appeal to the multiverse to explain it away. They also went on to acknowledge that what we would refer to as "God" was a possibility when they said "Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation." (link below. Page 19) If what they refer to as an "agent" had "reasons of its own" they are acknowledging that it would require intelligence and the power to restart the universe. It is also rather strange that they would entitle the paper as "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant". In a scientific paper why would anything that they found be labeled "disturbing"?


"Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant": https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25354992.pdf
Planck's Constant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
Multiverse::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Fine-tuning of the Universe:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

I find the fine-tuning argument more convincing than KALAM.

For me it is almost like if we learned the earth is flat. If we discovered the earth was flat, that would show me that earth is not natural. It is designed as some experiment or something. It just doesn't fit my expectations. The other planets and moons are clearly more like a sphere, so if earth were somehow flat, it would she me it was designed, not necessarily by God, though.

I do not expect a natural universe to be so finely tuned and mathematically predictable. It leans to being designed.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

I find the fine-tuning argument more convincing than KALAM.

For me it is almost like if we learned the earth is flat. If we discovered the earth was flat, that would show me that earth is not natural. It is designed as some experiment or something. It just doesn't fit my expectations. The other planets and moons are clearly more like a sphere, so if earth were somehow flat, it would she me it was designed, not necessarily by God, though.

I do not expect a natural universe to be so finely tuned and mathematically predictable. It leans to being designed.

An entity that can ponder this universe seems to can't help but think it was "fine tuned" for their existing within it.

When instead, it's us who're tuned - to varying degrees of fine - to exist within it.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

I find the fine-tuning argument more convincing than KALAM.

For me it is almost like if we learned the earth is flat. If we discovered the earth was flat, that would show me that earth is not natural. It is designed as some experiment or something. It just doesn't fit my expectations. The other planets and moons are clearly more like a sphere, so if earth were somehow flat, it would she me it was designed, not necessarily by God, though.

I do not expect a natural universe to be so finely tuned and mathematically predictable. It leans to being designed.

An entity that can ponder this universe seems to can't help but think it was "fine tuned" for their existing within it.

When instead, it's us who're tuned - to varying degrees of fine - to exist within it.

I disagree. It is not the theists of the world who came up with this argument. It was scientists who discovered the deep fine tuning, including atheistic scientists.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #11]

Aquinas: "I find the fine-tuning argument more convincing than KALAM.

For me it is almost like if we learned the earth is flat. If we discovered the earth was flat, that would show me that earth is not natural. It is designed as some experiment or something. It just doesn't fit my expectations. The other planets and moons are clearly more like a sphere, so if earth were somehow flat, it would she me it was designed, not necessarily by God, though.

I do not expect a natural universe to be so finely tuned and mathematically predictable. It leans to being designed."

Agreed. I used the the argument of the existence of first because the exact fine tuning argument is a natural follow up to it. Kalam or the First Cause argument will be my next one.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

I find the fine-tuning argument more convincing than KALAM.

For me it is almost like if we learned the earth is flat. If we discovered the earth was flat, that would show me that earth is not natural. It is designed as some experiment or something. It just doesn't fit my expectations. The other planets and moons are clearly more like a sphere, so if earth were somehow flat, it would she me it was designed, not necessarily by God, though.

I do not expect a natural universe to be so finely tuned and mathematically predictable. It leans to being designed.

An entity that can ponder this universe seems to can't help but think it was "fine tuned" for their existing within it.

When instead, it's us who're tuned - to varying degrees of fine - to exist within it.

I disagree. It is not the theists of the world who came up with this argument. It was scientists who discovered the deep fine tuning, including atheistic scientists.

Regardless of who came up with the argument, my point stands.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

I find the fine-tuning argument more convincing than KALAM.

For me it is almost like if we learned the earth is flat. If we discovered the earth was flat, that would show me that earth is not natural. It is designed as some experiment or something. It just doesn't fit my expectations. The other planets and moons are clearly more like a sphere, so if earth were somehow flat, it would she me it was designed, not necessarily by God, though.

I do not expect a natural universe to be so finely tuned and mathematically predictable. It leans to being designed.

An entity that can ponder this universe seems to can't help but think it was "fine tuned" for their existing within it.

When instead, it's us who're tuned - to varying degrees of fine - to exist within it.

I disagree. It is not the theists of the world who came up with this argument. It was scientists who discovered the deep fine tuning, including atheistic scientists.

Regardless of who came up with the argument, my point stands.

SCIENCE says the universe is finely-tuned. You can insist that it is we who are finely tuned to live within this universe if you like, but science says that you are wrong.

[brunumb]

SCIENCE says the universe is finely-tuned. You can insist that it is we who are finely tuned to live within this universe if you like, but science says that you are wrong.

It's not as cut and dried as you suggest. Try this for starters:
Is the 'fine-tuned universe' an illusion?
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-fine-tune ... usion.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #10]

No.You have fallen into the age old fallacy of Gaps for God, ID and the 'odds against'fallacy which is a basic one from Paul's appeal to nature to the unexplained fine - tuned universe. We do not know what the reason for the nuclear constant is, so you argue that it can't be anything but done by an Intelligence (though of course,you don't know how). The refutation is that, if and when we do know why it is what it is, why a universe exists (1) and how the constant can be explained naturally. When we 'don't know', it could be natural (scientific explanation), so you cannot rule out a natural reason.

Here is the creationist fallacy: it ignores the order - establishing laws of physics and (incorrectly) sees the only alternative as random, chaotic conditions (example of classic fallacy 'A whirlwind in a junkyard).In short, it disregards evolutionary processes (chemical, biological and social) even though these are observed, known and described, and goddunnit is not.

The odds against fallacy is a subset of this general gaps for god fallacy and the misunderstanding of science that refers to 'Random Chance'. It goes like this: "The odds against random chance resulting in Order are astronomical". Sure; toss a heap of pebbles out of a bucket, and you could do it forever and never get a decent Hexagon or even a reasonable circle. But there are two ways of showing that is false: an analogy of evolution by leaving the ones in the right place, (glueing them so they don't move) and tossing the remainder, again fixing the ones in the right place, until you have the desired shape. Evolutionary process (2).

Which brings us to the other analogy. Starting with a basic fallacy. Based of course on a priori godfaith - assuming an intended outcome which cannot be obtained unless directed by an intelligence. The refutation being that, if it isn't directed, the result is whatever youy get. To refer back to the stones analogy, the pattern that results is the you get, random chance; odds - 1/1.Of course you add physical processes to add the appearance of directed order, but intelligent direction is not necessary.

Thus ID fails, (so far) as does gaps for God, odds against, and generally, all the Creationist apologetics.

(1) I have actually seen an explanation, but I can only recall the conclusion 'because it has to' (naturally and through chemical evolution).

(2) atheist analogy: The rain fills the hole; the hole is not shaped to fit the rain. Things adapt to conditions; the conditions are not designed to fit the intended end result of evolution.

[DaveD49]

SCIENCE says the universe is finely-tuned. You can insist that it is we who are finely tuned to live within this universe if you like, but science says that you are wrong.

It's not as cut and dried as you suggest. Try this for starters:
Is the 'fine-tuned universe' an illusion?
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-fine-tune ... usion.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

I referred to the arguments against the fine-tuning in my opening remarks. The fine-tuning has been looked at for decades by scientists of all religions or lack thereof. With today's science it can be seen and the implications that they point to an intelligence are well know. Both of your references refer to some theories advanced by atheistic scientists such as Hawking and Krauss in an attempt to explain away the fine-tuning such as the multiverse and its unlimited number of universes. Our universe "just happens" to get all the values right. However while the fine-tuning can be shown clearly by modern science, the multiverse and other explanations rely purely on hypotheses. There is absolutely no way of proving that the multiverse actually exists. This is why many scientists refer to such hypotheses as "pseudoscience" because it bypasses the Scientific Method. If an when these ideas climb out of the pseudoscience category and can actually be tested, then, and only then would it be a theory worth listening to.

[JoeyKnothead]

SCIENCE says the universe is finely-tuned. You can insist that it is we who are finely tuned to live within this universe if you like, but science says that you are wrong.

EVOLUTION says we're tuned to live upon this planet, within this universe.

Take your problem up with Darwin, et al.