Fine tuning, a new approach

[[serious]]

So, numerous fine tuning threads have popped up recently, and all of them follow the same general pattern:

A very specific set of values for a number of constants cannot be much different than what they are for life as we know it to exist. Thus, some intelligent being must have set them to such values.

Now, the traditional approach is to dissect each link in the chain pointing out that different values do not rule out other forms of intelligence which we may or may not be able to conceive of, the possibility that further theoretical work may indicate that the values are deterministic much like inflation did for the cosmological constant. They may also point out that most such values are only "tuned" to an order of magnitude. These arguments often fail to convince as they tend to touch on levels of math and science that are not always the most intuitive (conflating very small numbers with very precise numbers comes up frequently)

Instead, let me ask this:

Assuming some intelligence set the numbers such as they are, does that require a finely tuned deity? To rephrase the argument above:

A very specific set of traits cannot be much different than what they are for a deity to create life as we know it. Thus, some intelligent being must have created such a deity.

Consider, what are the odds that, given one and only one deity:
That deity values life
That deity chose physical entities
That deity wishes to be discoverable by statistical methods
That deity does not wish to visibly maintain the underlying systems of the universe
... and so on.

Now, it seems to me if the second argument fails, so does the first. If neither fails, we are left with an infinite regression of singular, ever more powerful deities.

So, what is the failure of the fine tuned deity argument, and why does the analogous argument for a fine tuned universe fail?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

So, numerous fine tuning threads have popped up recently, and all of them follow the same general pattern:

A very specific set of values for a number of constants cannot be much different than what they are for life as we know it to exist. Thus, some intelligent being must have set them to such values.

Now, the traditional approach is to dissect each link in the chain pointing out that different values do not rule out other forms of intelligence which we may or may not be able to conceive of, the possibility that further theoretical work may indicate that the values are deterministic much like inflation did for the cosmological constant. They may also point out that most such values are only "tuned" to an order of magnitude. These arguments often fail to convince as they tend to touch on levels of math and science that are not always the most intuitive (conflating very small numbers with very precise numbers comes up frequently)

Instead, let me ask this:

Assuming some intelligence set the numbers such as they are, does that require a finely tuned deity? To rephrase the argument above:

A very specific set of traits cannot be much different than what they are for a deity to create life as we know it. Thus, some intelligent being must have created such a deity.

Consider, what are the odds that, given one and only one deity:
That deity values life
That deity chose physical entities
That deity wishes to be discoverable by statistical methods
That deity does not wish to visibly maintain the underlying systems of the universe
... and so on.

Now, it seems to me if the second argument fails, so does the first. If neither fails, we are left with an infinite regression of singular, ever more powerful deities.

So, what is the failure of the fine tuned deity argument, and why does the analogous argument for a fine tuned universe fail?

The deity is uncaused and eternal, the universe is finite, it had a beginning and a cause.

That's the real difference I'm seeing here, which I suppose would invalidate the second argument by saying it wouldn't require a cause in the first place. Not to mention attributes like 'valuing life' aren't quantifiable and aren't really like the 'finely tuned' physical constants of the universe. The main point is that the deity is eternal though, the universe is not and must have had a cause.

Anyway I don't really use philosophical arguments anymore. The fine tuning argument does raise interesting questions but I don't find it some silver bullet which proves the existence of God.

 

[Veera Chase]

If fine tuning is true a few questions need to be answered first.....
1. Who or what did it?
2. Why was it done?
3. What animal was it done for?

Answers.
1. We will never know because there is no way to find out.
2. We will never know because there is no way to find out.
3. It was certainly not done for our benefit because these are the facts..........
78% of the surface area is seawater.
Of the remaining 22%, about one third is either mountain ranges, deserts, or ice caps.
That leaves about 15% of the planetary surface — 15% that isn't lethal without life support equipment such as boats, tents, and clothing.
Which means that whoever or whatever fine tuned this earth did not do a very good job of it as far as I can see,
unless of course you happen to be a fish, in which case it was all done for you.

 

[[serious]]

The deity is uncaused and eternal, the universe is finite, it had a beginning and a cause.

But did the physical constants have a beginning? Could they not be the uncaused cause?

That's the real difference I'm seeing here, which I suppose would invalidate the second argument by saying it wouldn't require a cause in the first place. Not to mention attributes like 'valuing life' aren't quantifiable and aren't really like the 'finely tuned' physical constants of the universe. The main point is that the deity is eternal though, the universe is not and must have had a cause.

Perhaps we could rephrase that as "valuing life sufficiently as to allow it to occur in some corner of the universe, but not valuing it to such a degree that it was common in the universe." Any more desire for life and the universe would be visibly teeming with life, any less and we wouldn't exist ourselves.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

But did the physical constants have a beginning? Could they not be the uncaused cause?

Constants are not a tangible thing to be uncaused. They are properties of the finite universe we have measured. You can't have constants without a universe, they aren't strange metaphysical quantities floating around in existence.

Perhaps we could rephrase that as "valuing life sufficiently as to allow it to occur in some corner of the universe, but not valuing it to such a degree that it was common in the universe." Any more desire for life and the universe would be visibly teeming with life, any less and we wouldn't exist ourselves.

Indeed. That the universe only has us as intelligent life would fit with the Biblical narrative, and the vast expanse of the universe a display of God's power and creativity, to make us look in awe and say with the Psalmist, 'What is man that you are mindful of him?'

 

[AirPo]

If fine tuning is true a few questions need to be answered first.....
1. Who or what did it?
2. Why was it done?
3. What animal was it done for?

Answers.
1. We will never know because there is no way to find out.
2. We will never know because there is no way to find out.
3. It was certainly not done for our benefit because these are the facts..........
78% of the surface area is seawater.
Of the remaining 22%, about one third is either mountain ranges, deserts, or ice caps.
That leaves about 15% of the planetary surface — 15% that isn't lethal without life support equipment such as boats, tents, and clothing.
Which means that whoever or whatever fine tuned this earth did not do a very good job of it as far as I can see,
unless of course you happen to be a fish, in which case it was all done for you.

Isn't this just a cut and paste from the other thread?

 

[Veera Chase]

Isn't this just a cut and paste from the other thread?

No this is the original, the other one is a cut and paste.
I thought as they were both on about the same thing [fine tuning] I would use it in both, twice the exposure so to speak.

 

[Loudmouth]

Constants are not a tangible thing to be uncaused. They are properties of the finite universe we have measured. You can't have constants without a universe, they aren't strange metaphysical quantities floating around in existence.

Wouldn't the realm in which the deity exists also have constants? It would seem to me that an intelligence requires a rational realm of some kind in which to exist, and that realm would have predictable constants. An intelligence couldn't exist in a place where anything can happen at any point for no reason.

 

[AirPo]

No this is the original, the other one is a cut and paste.
I thought as they were both on about the same thing [fine tuning] I would use it in both, twice the exposure so to speak.

So it is.

 

[Veera Chase]

Wouldn't the realm in which the deity exists also have constants? It would seem to me that an intelligence requires a rational realm of some kind in which to exist, and that realm would have predictable constants. An intelligence couldn't exist in a place where anything can happen at any point for no reason.

It looks like someone might need to press the reset button and start again, who would have thought that God lived in a world were there were rules and laws? saying that, if God is everywhere and can do anything that doesn't sound like a very orderly world does it? it sounds almost magical to me.

 

[[serious]]

Constants are not a tangible thing to be uncaused. They are properties of the finite universe we have measured. You can't have constants without a universe, they aren't strange metaphysical quantities floating around in existence.

They are measured in our finite universe much as God may be experienced in our finite universe. Why must they be dependent on the existence of the universe if God is not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, numerous fine tuning threads have popped up recently, and all of them follow the same general pattern:

A very specific set of values for a number of constants cannot be much different than what they are for life as we know it to exist. Thus, some intelligent being must have set them to such values.

Now, the traditional approach is to dissect each link in the chain pointing out that different values do not rule out other forms of intelligence which we may or may not be able to conceive of, the possibility that further theoretical work may indicate that the values are deterministic much like inflation did for the cosmological constant. They may also point out that most such values are only "tuned" to an order of magnitude. These arguments often fail to convince as they tend to touch on levels of math and science that are not always the most intuitive (conflating very small numbers with very precise numbers comes up frequently)

Instead, let me ask this:

Assuming some intelligence set the numbers such as they are, does that require a finely tuned deity? To rephrase the argument above:

A very specific set of traits cannot be much different than what they are for a deity to create life as we know it. Thus, some intelligent being must have created such a deity.

Consider, what are the odds that, given one and only one deity:
That deity values life
That deity chose physical entities
That deity wishes to be discoverable by statistical methods
That deity does not wish to visibly maintain the underlying systems of the universe
... and so on.

Now, it seems to me if the second argument fails, so does the first. If neither fails, we are left with an infinite regression of singular, ever more powerful deities.

So, what is the failure of the fine tuned deity argument, and why does the analogous argument for a fine tuned universe fail?

God is simple. He is not created and is eternal.

 

[[serious]]

God is simple. He is not created and is eternal.

Could the underlying rules of the universe not be likewise simple, not created, and eternal?

EDIT: also, the bible says God is beyond our understanding, not that he's simple.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Could the underlying rules of the universe not be likewise simple, not created, and eternal?

EDIT: also, the bible says God is beyond our understanding, not that he's simple.

We know the universe had a beginning, the "rules" came into being when the universe did.

 

[Veera Chase]

We know the universe had a beginning, the "rules" came into being when the universe did.

Please tell me how you get from 'the universe had a beginning' to 'therefore God'?
What's wrong with 'we don't know how it happened' because that's the truth? who decided to make things worse by putting up an invisible God as an answer? someone who wanted to take money from gullible people I guess, how can something that's simply made up be an answer for anything?

No the king is not naked he's wearing beautiful clothes, if you were smarter and had a more open mind you would see them.

 

[bhsmte]

Please tell me how you get from 'the universe had a beginning' to 'therefore God'?
What's wrong with 'we don't know how it happened' because that's the truth? who decided to make things worse by putting up an invisible God as an answer? someone who wanted to take money from gullible people I guess, how can something that's simply made up be an answer for anything?

No the king is not naked he's wearing beautiful clothes, if you were smarter and had a more open mind you would see them.

Some have to find a place for God somewhere.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please tell me how you get from 'the universe had a beginning' to 'therefore God'?
What's wrong with 'we don't know how it happened' because that's the truth? who decided to make things worse by putting up an invisible God as an answer? someone who wanted to take money from gullible people I guess, how can something that's simply made up be an answer for anything?

No the king is not naked he's wearing beautiful clothes, if you were smarter and had a more open mind you would see them.

Don't put down my intelligence when you aren't even aware of what it is, smarter people than I know God exists. Smarter people than you as well.

 

[[serious]]

We know the universe had a beginning, the "rules" came into being when the universe did.

How do we know that?

 

[Veera Chase]

Don't put down my intelligence when you aren't even aware of what it is, smarter people than I know God exists. Smarter people than you as well.

I didn't and I do not need to put down your intelligence, you have shown here many times that you are more than capable of doing that yourself.

 

[Veera Chase]

smarter people than I know God exists, Smarter people than you as well.

You say that but you never ever say how they could even begin to know such a thing, be honest, it's just a feeling you and they have, sadly feelings prove only one thing, you are alive, we all have feelings so it's no big deal.