A finely tuned universe that points to a God.
- Thread starter Usus Vox Tractus
- Start date
Precisely. We don't know how many universes there are, so there is no reason to conclude that our universe is improbable. If we can not determine that the universe is improbable, then there is no evidence for the necessity of a fine tuner.
Upvote
0
We're whipping a dead horse at this point. I'm simply noting that there is somewhat *more* support for a universe than there is for a multiverse. It's a "preponderance of evidence" argument in the final analysis, and therefore it's still a "weak" argument IMO.
Upvote
0
No. Not at all.
You claim that there is more evidence for one universe, than for more than one... and you conclude that from having one to observe?
This doesn't work.
Why would the fact that we have one universe to observe be more evidence for the idea that there is ONLY one, than that there are more than one?
If there was only one, we would also observe one.
If there were more than one, we would also observe this one.
The evidence for this universe doesn't favor either position.
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 44
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yea, I was thinking the same. The fact that we can observe this one isn't evidence for or against more, but it's evidence of this one, which is more evidence than we have for any others.
Upvote
0
From what I've read multiverses doesn't solve the fine-tuned (odds) problem.
Someone has put it if you were at a poker game and the dealer got 4 aces and a wild card 20 times in a row would you believe multiverses will help the odds of it happening or would you believe the dealer is cheating?
I think Jones hit the nail on the head as it's more than just the odds:
Someone has put it if you were at a poker game and the dealer got 4 aces and a wild card 20 times in a row would you believe multiverses will help the odds of it happening or would you believe the dealer is cheating?
I think Jones hit the nail on the head as it's more than just the odds:
Distinguishing Intent
I asked Sam how to tell the difference between intentional similarity and accidental similarity. It would be unfair of me not to answer the question myself.
First of all, I must state my belief that it is possible to differentiate purpose from accident. Again, this belief is rooted in my former employment, some of which involved target recognition. A smart bomb needs to be programmed to distinguish a man-made structure (a bridge or an armored vehicle) from a natural feature (a tree or a rock). Algorithms do exist for making the distinction, which I am not at liberty to share.
The game of poker, however, is not subject to security restrictions, so let’s see if you can recognize purpose from accident in a friendly game of poker. The photographs below show four hands dealt during a poker game. The hands were dealt twice. The first time was Deal A, and the second time was Deal B.
In Deal A, West was dealt a flush, North was dealt a full house, East was dealt four-of-a-kind, and I (South) dealt myself a straight flush (the highest hand).
Do you think I dealt those hands from a shuffled deck, or a stacked deck? If you think those hands (which encourage my three opponents to bet large sums of money, only to lose to my straight flush) were honestly dealt from a shuffled deck, I would like to invite you to my high-stakes poker game next Wednesday night.
Now consider Deal B.
Could those cards have been dealt from a shuffled deck? Yes, they could. In fact, they were.
Why might you believe that Deal B came from a shuffled deck, but Deal A came from a stacked deck? Your first response might be, “The odds against Deal A are so small that it could not possibly have happened by chance.” That’s the wrong answer. Yes, the odds against Deal A are very small indeed, but it could possibly have happened by chance. I would not bet on it—but it could happen.
But it isn’t really a question of probability. The probability that those 20 cards in Deal A were dealt in that order is exactly the same as the probability that the 20 cards in Deal B were dealt in that order. Let me say that again a different way to make sure I make myself perfectly clear. Deal A is no less probable than Deal B. If you shuffle a deck and deal out 20 cards, it is just unlikely that those 20 cards will match Deal B as Deal A.
But you were able, instinctively, to know that Deal A came from a stacked deck, and Deal B came from a shuffled deck, even though both hands are equally unlikely. Since probability has nothing to do with it, how were you able to recognize my nefarious purpose in Deal A?
It all comes down to “meaning” or “purpose.” The four hands in Deal A have meaning, and serve a purpose. (Their purpose is to beat a less powerful hand.) Because it has meaning, there is a name for South’s hand in Deal A. It is called “a straight flush”—but there is no name for South’s hand in Deal B because it has no meaning, value, or purpose.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
And I am simply saying that an argument from ignorance is not "more support". It is a logical fallacy.
Upvote
0
In the case of our universe, you only have 4 aces and a wild card in one hand, and you have no idea how many hands have been dealt. You have one winner and no idea how many losing hands there are.
Given 100 billion hands, you would expect both Deal A and Deal B to occur. You also forget that.
Upvote
0
The fine tuning argument is really just a repeat of the irreducible complexity argument. We don't know how something could have evolved, therefore it didn't. This means that a designer had to do it. In the case of the fine tuning argument, it is claimed that we don't know how natural processes could produce our universe, therefore natural processes didn't do it. This means that a designer had to do it.
Both are based on the same logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance. We don't know how nature could have done it, therefore God.
Both are based on the same logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance. We don't know how nature could have done it, therefore God.
Upvote
0
Just one of those fine tune factor equals dealing 20 aces and a wild card 20 times in a row.
You seem to miss the point. We have the ability to detect "purpose", something with a cause , which atheist has to completely ignore.
Upvote
0
Somehow that doesn't seem any better or worse to me than "We don't know what the actual empirical cause of photon redshift might be in the patterns that we observe from space, therefore space expansion, inflation and dark energy did it. That's also an argument from ignorance.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Emphasis mine. That was my point. I do find it somewhat amusing to see that atheists seem quite willing to believe in things which they cannot see when it suits them.
Upvote
0
Somehow that doesn't seem any better or worse to me than "We don't know what the actual empirical cause of photon redshift might be in the patterns that we observe from space, therefore space expansion, inflation and dark energy did it. That's also an argument from ignorance.
And here comes the topic drift.
Upvote
0
Emphasis mine. That was my point. I do find it somewhat amusing to see that atheists seem quite willing to believe in things which they cannot see when it suits them.
We can not see evidence that this universe is the only universe in existence.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I've been know to add and subtract a few things.
I've been slammed after hurricane Iselle and there's a second one on the way. There is no end to tree work in Hawaii...that's both the good and the bad news!
Meanwhile, people argue over "fine tuning", probability vs odds, and I have twice posted the accounting for the near exact (within .5%) value of the dark energy expansive constant using infinite universes in an ABC (A3 root system) sphere stack. This stack is a holographically iterative wave front as a waveform expression of a preexisting substance. The spheres limit each others size, whatever the measure may be. Every universe is the same size and has the same rules. The same rules we find here.
Universes are nested wave-form expressions of a previously unified infinite substance. The are inflated waveforms, like the rainbow spread out by a prism from white light. The original substance is the "white light", the fine tuning of the universe is the relationships of the color/frequencies in the "rainbow" (laws of physics in a universe) to each other.
It shouldn't be all that difficult a concept to grasp. Especially since nearly every ancient religion, philosophy and science begins with a "watery/light" infinite existance that space is "vibrated/carved" out of to make the space for creation (a universe).
I'm describing the quantization (waveform) of a spatially infinite substance (particle) into a self-iterative (autopoetic) eternal wavefront. It's not that hard to understand. There are only 3 infinite spatial relationships and 1 energetic relationship it has with itself. Only 4 things define the structure of the wave front.
4 very simple relationships you should be able to grok immediately if you give it half a thought.
The big bang theory requires a singularity of finite mass. A very "fine tuned" amount of mass to reach the equilibrium we enjoy today. But an infinitely spatial singularity that contracts void space cavitations (universes) within, as self limiting holographic waveform does not need such "fine tuning" because it is logistically self tuned and self limited. Limited and defined by its previously unified 3 spatial relationships and 1 energetic relationship it has with itself.
It's not some huge leap of faith. It's actually quite simple, elegant, logistically sound and highly predictive of internal universal structure and order across scale. Plus tons of historic corroboration if you are into that kind of thing. Some couldn't care less what the entirety of humanity thought before them. Regardless, the logic and results stand on their own without appeal to authority or precedent.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
