What is Fine Tuning in General?

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
There is another thread on fine tuning, but I have a more basic question. I am confused about the general philosophy/math/whatever of "fine tuning" and "intelligent design" arguments for God.

Here is my understanding of the argument using an analogy. I am standing in a maze facing an obelisk. I assume that the purpose of the universe is for me to find something interesting like this obelisk. I recall all the correct choices I had to make from the time I entered this maze until I found this obelisk, and I think about the low probability of reaching this destination by random decisions. Therefore, I conclude that God was at work somehow.

If my analogy is correct, then I think "fine tuning" and "intelligent design" make the mistake of assuming a divine purpose to our current circumstances. Maybe God's goal was to create a perfectly empty universe or something as opposed to the universe we have.
 

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I don't think your analogy really works. But, fine tuning is merely a factual observation, not an argument in itself.

Doesn't the idea of tuning assume a purpose? If I am listening to music on the radio, and I notice that slight adjustment of the dial in either direction causes static, then I might say the radio is "finely tuned" to that particular station. However, maybe God likes listening to static instead of the lousy music on that station. Maybe God is frustrated that out of all the possible adjustments, the tuner found that awful radio station.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Doesn't the idea of tuning assume a purpose? If I am listening to music on the radio, and I notice that slight adjustment of the dial in either direction causes static, then I might say the radio is "finely tuned" to that particular station. However, maybe God likes listening to static instead of the lousy music on that station. Maybe God is frustrated that out of all the possible adjustments, the tuner found that awful radio station.
Honestly I've been pondering the question trying to answer as if I were agnostic, but I can't think of anything except that tuning assumes a tuner. Which I guess has to include purpose, if nothing else but the purpose of bringing forth the effects obtained by the tuning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Honestly I've been pondering the question trying to answer as if I were agnostic, but I can't think of anything except that tuning assumes a tuner. Which I guess has to include purpose, if nothing else but the purpose of bringing forth the effects obtained by the tuning.

It seems to me that the "fine tuning" and "intelligent design" arguments boil-down to claiming that the current natural state is not "random" - it is purposeful ... and that purpose is to create the current natural state (or something with similarly "desirable" properties).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chesterton
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That's what it looks like.

An atheist might say that the current natural state is "random" and without purpose. We perceive "desirable" properties in the current natural state, because they are comfortable and familiar for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
An atheist might say that the current natural state is "random" and without purpose. We perceive "desirable" properties in the current natural state, because they are comfortable and familiar for us.
That's just an empty assertion unless they have facts to support it.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That's just an empty assertion unless they have facts to support it.

It's no worse than saying that everything has purpose - which seems to be one of the assumptions of the "fine tuning" and "intelligent design" arguments. In other words, these arguments assume the proposition that they seek to prove, so it seems to be a case of "begging the question".
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Honestly I've been pondering the question trying to answer as if I were agnostic, but I can't think of anything except that tuning assumes a tuner.

The answer they offer is that a fine tuned universe works and the infinite number of poorly tuned ones do not. You missed out on the randomly created universes that fizzled.

This view assumes infinite tests, or infinite multiple universes.
 
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

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The answer they offer is that a fine tuned universe works and the infinite number of poorly tuned ones do not. You missed out on the randomly created universes that fizzled.

This view assumes infinite tests, or infinite multiple universes.

But when we say "the fine tuned universe works", we are assuming that the purpose of this universe matches its current properties. Maybe God prefers universes that only hold together for a split second before self destructing - more like a firecracker. Maybe our universe is a real disappointment to God, because it was a dud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But when we say "the fine tuned universe works", we are assuming that the purpose of this universe matches its current properties. Maybe God prefers universes that only hold together for a split second before self destructing - more like a firecracker. Maybe our universe is a real disappointment to God, because it was a dud.

The whole idea is that we appreciate what we have becasue we are here.
We have less respect for failed realities. So ours looks impressive and
"seems" designed. That's what "they" say against the design model.

I thinks it's just sour grapes becasue God doesn't win superbowls in their favor.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It's no worse than saying that everything has purpose - which seems to be one of the assumptions of the "fine tuning" and "intelligent design" arguments.

If it's no worse, then flip a coin I guess. Go with the belief that everything looks designed but isn't (don't believe your lying eyes), or the belief that everything looks designed because it is. :)
In other words, these arguments assume the proposition that they seek to prove, so it seems to be a case of "begging the question".

As I see it, it's not "assuming the proposition", it's just that you can't use the metaphor to describe the observation without implying what the metaphor implies - tuning implies a Tuner.
The answer they offer is that a fine tuned universe works and the infinite number of poorly tuned ones do not. You missed out on the randomly created universes that fizzled.

This view assumes infinite tests, or infinite multiple universes.

It's not a good answer, it's just a hand-waving. You should see the video I posted in the other tuning thread. It's short and good: Fine Tuning
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think about the low probability of reaching this destination by random decisions. Therefore, I conclude that God was at work somehow.

This is the "New Atheists," strawman circular version of the fine-tuning argument. Also called God of the gaps. It is fallacious (the strawman version).

Fine-tuning is a feature of our universe.

The question is which inference best describes the data we have evidence for? Chance? Necessity? Design? Some combination of those?

"
“Fine-tuning” with respect to nature’s fundamental constants and quantities means that small deviations from the actual values of the constants and quantities in question would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is exquisitely narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values."

So we are not to "read in" design here. There is a causal analysis to see if physical necessity (such as the location of the electron shells for any specific molecule determines a small number of possible states for electrons to be located).

P1 - The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

P2 - It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

Argument - Therefore, it is due to design.

We could use the same argument to prove the 4 presidents on Mt Rushmore are "designed!"


Read more: The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith
Fine Tuning | Reasonable Faith
Read more: Is “Fine-Tuning” Question-Begging? | Reasonable Faith
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
when we say "the fine tuned universe works", we are assuming that the purpose of this universe matches its current properties.

No.

Brandon Carter really did hit on something. And Antony Flew was "the" atheist of his day and was swayed by the force of the data. Remember that Flew and many that have and are perplexed by fine-tuning are or were atheists.

World-class physicists and philosophers, not a bunch of NECs making stuff up.

So properties of this universe fall between an incredibly small range and there is nothing in our understanding of physics that necessitates this fine-tuning.
 
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

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
"
“Fine-tuning” with respect to nature’s fundamental constants and quantities means that small deviations from the actual values of the constants and quantities in question would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is exquisitely narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values."
"

Responding to your quote above, the flaw I see is to assume that if a Designer exists, then His/Her design goal was obviously life. In the original flood story the gods were annoyed by the noisiness of life and decided to wipe it out for that reason. Why wouldn't a Designer want to create some different kind of universe that we might consider to be a "failure" for creating life?

That's my basic point. We humans are being very conceited to assume that human life or something equally "intelligent" was somebody's goal.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Responding to your quote above, the flaw I see is to assume that if a Designer exists, then His/Her design goal was obviously life. In the original flood story the gods were annoyed by the noisiness of life and decided to wipe it out for that reason. Why wouldn't a Designer want to create some different kind of universe that we might consider to be a "failure" for creating life?

That's my basic point. We humans are being very conceited to assume that human life or something equally "intelligent" was somebody's goal.
Pretend you're not human and look at the numbers. The situation will look exactly the same.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Responding to your quote above, the flaw I see is to assume that if a Designer exists, then His/Her design goal was obviously life.

And while some may make this assumption, the fine-tuning argument doesn't.

Other may assume a designer does NOT exist.

So assumptions or presumptions used in support of an argument for the truth of those assumptions does give us a circular argument.

That's my basic point. We humans are being very conceited to assume that human life or something equally "intelligent" was somebody's goal.

Again, there is no assumption that "human life is special," in the FTP.

We could be looking for the same question regarding beryllium and the method wouldn't change one iota.

Fred Hoyle, a world-renowned cosmologist and outspoken atheist (when the data was first coming out about fine-tuning in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s), stated the following,

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Fine Tuning | Reasonable Faith
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Radrook
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
@Chesterton and @Uber Genius , I am not saying that human life is assumed as a goal - I am saying that life is assumed as a goal. Why should life be the goal? Why wouldn't a designer seek to have a completely empty universe or some other possibility? There are all kinds of different paintings created by artists with different goals. Why wouldn't God desire a universe that dies almost as soon as it begins like a firecracker?
 
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

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
@Chesterton and @Uber Genius , I am not saying that human life is assumed as a goal - I am saying that life is assumed as a goal. Why should life be the goal? Why wouldn't a designer seek to have a completely empty universe or some other possibility? There are all kinds of different paintings created by artists with different goals. Why wouldn't God desire a universe that dies almost as soon as it begins like a firecracker?
A firecracker universe would be designed to do that then, wouldn't it? And this one would still be what it is.

I'm not really clear what you're saying. Are you trying to make God responsible for a multiverse, so that we're still designed, but we're one design of many attempts, and ours is just an unintended design?
 
Upvote 0