The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

I'm asking you to clarify the statements you make.

Ok. Such as?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's still just speculation. There might very well turn out to be things that are currently not known, which might give us the idea today that "this and that would prohibit life to exist". And it would be wrong.

For example, life -as it exists today- requires a certain amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to breath to survive. However, in ancient times, such oxygen was actually toxic and the rise of oxygen levels actually triggered one of the first big extinction waves.

Without that knowledge, one would assume that the presence of oxygen is a requirement for life. But it's not. As it turns out, oxygen used to be toxic to that ancient, primitive life.


See, this is the problem when one tries to actually establish conclusions while ignorance reigns.

This is part of the equation that I was talking about. What we KNOW about the presence of oxygen on early life being toxic. This argument isn't about what isn't known but what is known.

One can speculate and design tests or experiments to see if the speculation holds up. But more often then not, especially for "hard problems" like the origins of life, let alone of the universe, those speculative models will turn out to be dead wrong.

This is why the "fine tuning argument", when (ab)used as a god-argument, is called a fallacious argument from ignorance.

The measurements are very precise, they are not speculated on. Scientists also do not need to speculate on what would happne if there measurements were different, so your argument based on speculation and ignorance is not correct.

Only on paper.
You can't actually go into the lab and "tweak the values" to see what happens.
You can't even know if tweaking the values is at all possible.
Because ignorance reigns in this subject. We don't know if the values CAN be changed, we don't know if universes with other physical laws CAN exist, etc...

Also, if they can and if there idd is some kind of "multi-verse" with an infinite amount of "universes", then universes such as this one are inevitable as well.

So, as said multiple times, your entire argument is based on speculation and ignorance.

This is just showing your biases. WE can't understand a great deal by going into the lab, that doesn't stop us from knowledge of past events. If it did we would have no knowledge at all.

Now think about what you just wrote. All that ignorance, all those things we can't know and then BOOM you assert that universes like this one are inevitable if we have an infinite amount of universes. We most certainly CAN NOT KNOW that other universes even exist. However, it doesn't matter because it still doesn't really explain our own. That is not assertion but a fact.

It is speculation because, as said, they can't actually go into the lab and change the value to see what will happen. It's not even known if it is actually possible to have other values.

It's speculation. From beginning to end.

How does that speculation differ from elements in evolution then?

A starting point, for what, exactly?

For the discussion between Athee and I.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why?

Read the links that I provided to Athee.

How does an assertion of that sort "explain" anything?

eventually we might get there.

When did you show that such a creator exists at all?

It is called evidence for...

You're missing a few steps.

What steps?

 

[HitchSlap]

Huh. So just...

Spoiler

Or, limit our assertions to that which is most parsimonious. I'll leave the imagining/making stuff up, to the religionists.

 

[Athée]

Perhaps you can explain why you think this doesn't provide evidence that the universe with parameters that allow life is rare?

Sure,
I think the basic error being made is one of level. You are giving evidence that life within our universe is rare and then saying that therfore the universe itself is rare.
By way of analogy. Imagine that we have a container full of marbles. All the marbles are back except one white one. You look at this situation and note that the white marble is truly rare inside the container. Then you claim that because the white marble is rare, therefore the container itself is rare.
The universe is the container and the life on earth the white marble. Just because life is rare in this universe (and we don'tknow that for a fact) does not mean that the universe itself is rare or in your words, intrinsically unlikely.
Hope that helps

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure,
I think the basic error being made is one of level. You are giving evidence that life within our universe is rare and then saying that therfore the universe itself is rare.
By way of analogy. Imagine that we have a container full of marbles. All the marbles are back except one white one. You look at this situation and note that the white marble is truly rare inside the container. Then you claim that because the white marble is rare, therefore the container itself is rare.
The universe is the container and the life on earth the white marble. Just because life is rare in this universe (and we don'tknow that for a fact) does not mean that the universe itself is rare or in your words, intrinsically unlikely.
Hope that helps

What I am saying is that the marbles are the universes and there are all black marbles in trillions and trillions of marbles and the white one is ours. The container in this doesn't matter.

 

[pat34lee]

Is the definition of notion also required? Or an English lesson?

No, just wondering.

 

[quatona]

What I am saying is that the marbles are the universes and there are all black marbles in trillions and trillions of marbles and the white one is ours.

Well, you quoted an article that argued from life being rare in this universe. If you think this is irrelevant for your argument - why did you quote it, in the first place?

 

[Athée]

What I am saying is that the marbles are the universes and there are all black marbles in trillions and trillions of marbles and the white one is ours. The container in this doesn't matter.

OK that's fine (well sort of but we can get to that later). SI far though all the information you gave me was about one specific mote of dust inside the one white marble. What evidence do you have that the white marble is rare?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, you quoted an article that argued from life being rare in this universe. If you think this is irrelevant for your argument - why did you quote it, in the first place?

It is relevant, but it is also the fact that it is one such universe according to Davies in trillions and trillions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK that's fine (well sort of but we can get to that later). SI far though all the information you gave me was about one specific mote of dust inside the one white marble. What evidence do you have that the white marble is rare?

How do you figure it is one specific mote of dust in the one white marble? lol? Not following.

 

[AirPo]

No, just wondering.

Then you'd have to ask people that know me.

 

[Athée]

How do you figure it is one specific mote of dust in the one white marble? lol? Not following.

The evidence you gave in those links is about life in our universe, specifically most of the information was either about life in earth or the lack of it anywhere else in our universe. In your adaptation of my analogy each marble is a universe. Therfore information about life in our universe is information about one marble. I added the bit about the dust most inside the marble as a way of representing the earth and it's life.
Maybe my attempt to explain via analogy was poor but the basic objection is valid. Your premise states that a universe that is life permitting is intrinsically unlikely. You have only given evidence that life, even in a life permitting universe, is rare. You have not given any evidence to support the notion that a life permitting universe is rare and that was the premise you were trying to establish.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Some are better then others. Perhaps doctors should be required to tell people how well they did in school. Half of the doctors graduated in the lower half of their class.

Which would still put them ahead of your average Joe, to keep you alive and healthy.

Still this is the whole point behind the Bible.

I don't see how doctors are in any way related to the bible.

The Bible is not based on man and man's authority.

It was written by men.

The Bible is based on God and God's authority.

Even if that were true, which is a claim you can't support, it would still be written by fallible men. And when you read it, it's pretty clear that it was written from the context and the knowledge of people in those times and cultures.

So the same God that created us and the entire universe is the God of the Bible.

You keep saying this, but...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Creation is evidence for a Creator.

Sure, since that is what the word means. But calling existence a "creation", doesn't make it so.

The existence of the universe is, by itself, only evidence of the existance of the universe.
The fact that it exists, doesn't tell you anything about how it originated.
If you are going to make claims like it having originated from some unprovable being that made it, you're going to have to actually support that claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok. Such as?

What do you think is surprising about finding yourself in a universe in which you can actually exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is part of the equation that I was talking about. What we KNOW about the presence of oxygen on early life being toxic. This argument isn't about what isn't known but what is known.

That is just not true.
The stuff about physical constants etc, the theories behind them - specifically their origins and possible "flexibility", aren't solid established science at all.

We know next to nothing about the origins and the very nature of the universe.

Not to mention that the "fine tuning" god-argument is inevitably going to end up in a god-of-the-gaps.

The measurements are very precise, they are not speculated on.

We aren't talking about the facts themselves, but about hypotheses to explain those facts. You're going full speed ahead towards "god-dun-it", while making (unjustified) assumption after assumption along the way.

Scientists also do not need to speculate on what would happne if there measurements were different

Yes, they do, because they have no way to test their models and must thus assume that their math and models account for all the facts.

You can't go into a lab and turn gravity off.

, so your argument based on speculation and ignorance is not correct.

I don't see how.

This is just showing your biases. WE can't understand a great deal by going into the lab, that doesn't stop us from knowledge of past events. If it did we would have no knowledge at all.

This doesn't make much sense to me.
I can only repeat what I said: you can't go into a lab and fiddle with the physical constants. You can take the current (barely testable) models and put other values into the parameters, and see what happens, sure.

Now think about what you just wrote. All that ignorance, all those things we can't know and then BOOM you assert that universes like this one are inevitable if we have an infinite amount of universes.

Ow dear...
That's not an assertion. That's a fact. If you have an infinite amount of universes, then universes such as this one are inevitable. That's kind of the thing with the infinite.

And I wasn't asserting that an infinite amount of universes actually do exist, btw.
I'm saying that it's just one of the many possibilities your imagination can produce.

We most certainly CAN NOT KNOW that other universes even exist.

Not at this time at least.
But that was kind of my point...
Too bad it went straight over your head.

However, it doesn't matter because it still doesn't really explain our own.

If an infinite amount of universes exist, there need not be any special explanation necessary for our own universe, as in an infinite sea of universes, a universe like ours is bound to exist.

How does that speculation differ from elements in evolution then?

Evolution models are testable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What I am saying is that the marbles are the universes and there are all black marbles in trillions and trillions of marbles and the white one is ours. The container in this doesn't matter.

If life can only exist in the white marble, then it should come as no surprise that you that you find yourself in the white marble.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see how doctors are in any way related to the bible.

Luke, the beloved physician, wrote Luke & Acts.

Colossians 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

 

[KCfromNC]

The point of this thread is to in regard to the Fine tuning and how that supports Intelligent design.

Weird, the only scientific reference you posted spent a lot of words talking about how promising a multiverse theory was but none at all on creationism. Why post that reference if you think it is incorrect?