A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Just a heads up. I think your dismissal of it is lightweight and reactionary. The concept is interesting and worth consideration. The affection for the idea expressed by some religious types is an unfortunate distraction. When I have the time I'll start a thread to deconstruct your counter arguments. But for the moment this is only a heads up. i.e. I won't be responding further here.
I'm well aware that my argument is extremely lightweight and overly simplistic. However, since the interlocutor doesn't seem able to grasp simple ideas there's no point getting into more detail.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There are several posters here arguing against FTA, me included. Does that mean we take FTA seriously, or does it simply mean that when somebody throws FTA out there we are able to counter it?

I'll answer for you - we don't take FTA seriously, but we do have arguments to counter it.
That seems a bit of a contrast compared to what I have read on the subject. Regardless of what can be made out of the fine tuning issue most find it a big deal at least at first. British physicist David Deutsch says
If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, there is room for confusion here between the Fine-Tuning Argument for God and the argument over the idea of the fine-tuning of the physical constants.
Yes and I am not even mentioning anything about God being the cause of fine tuning and there is a lot of resistance like if anyone acknowledges it they will also have to acknowledge God. I have stated that trying to link God to fine tuning is another issue that has no verification.

But here's another point, many people bring up a creative agent or a multiverse as possible causes and no one thinks it is a big deal when discussing the issue on the many sites on the subject as these two ideas are logical ones that can be considered. Both do not have direct support but only a multiverse is entertained as real possible cause by scientists. In fact it is used as an alternative to fine tuning. I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting that a creative agent could be one alternative to fine tuning and you don't have to be a creationists to suggest this.

It seems that the argument gets polarized into those who reject fine tuning altogether or they are called creationists when even non-religious people think the fine tuning points to a possible creative agent behind things. Hoyle was an atheist and he stated “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Good idea, because the use of it by creationists is the only part of it we are criticizing--and dismissing (in reactionary and lightweight way?)-- here.
Just out of interest if the universe came about by a naturalistic cause which could not guarantee that we humans would not result then how do you think God created the universe to ensure intelligent life came about.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
That seems a bit of a contrast compared to what I have read on the subject. Regardless of what can be made out of the fine tuning issue most find it a big deal at least at first. British physicist David Deutsch says
If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.
Perhaps we have a different understanding of what "making a big deal" means. It's a loaded expression, and when coming from a creationist it tends to imply some form of acceptance of a divine intelligence. If that's not your intention, you're an unusual creationist and I apologise for misunderstanding.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps we have a different understanding of what "making a big deal" means. It's a loaded expression, and when coming from a creationist it tends to imply some form of acceptance of a divine intelligence. If that's not your intention, you're an unusual creationist and I apologise for misunderstanding.
My big deal is just like for anything that seems to have some pretty amazing coincidences or odds for something to happen where I would raise an eye brow or two. It is not a loaded statement if non-religious people use the same expressions like those that I have posted. It just reflects how surprising and unusual it appears. AS mentioned I am not a creationist and have stated several times we cannot verify God through science. Though I think some case can be made for some indirect support for a creative agent with fine tuning so can there be for a multiverse and that is what non-creationists and non-religious people also think are the two many logical conclusions when looking at this topic.

After-all several scientists like Stephen Hawking, Hoyle and Weinberg who are atheists say they can understand how people can conclude that there may be some divine influence involved though they do not believe in one. What I find just as ironic as people saying that creationists will make a big deal out of the fine tuning is that some non-religious people want to minimize it and make out it is nothing which is also a bit of an exaggeration.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,492
✟236,333.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I'm well aware that my argument is extremely lightweight and overly simplistic. However, since the interlocutor doesn't seem able to grasp simple ideas there's no point getting into more detail.
That's fine. I just have a strong aversion (perhaps a form of OCD) to absolute statements in general and demonstrably over-simplified absolute statements in particular. They seem ontologically corrupt and epistemologically misleading. :) I'll still plan to start a thread for a focused discussion of the concept sans creationism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
That's fine. I just have a strong aversion (perhaps a form of OCD) to absolute statements in general and demonstrably over-simplified absolute statements in particular. They seem ontologically corrupt and epistemologically misleading. :) I'll still plan to start a thread for a focused discussion of the concept sans creationism.
I'd love to get into a discussion on the weaknesses of what I was saying, but stevevw doesn't seem to understand what the basics were and offered no attempt to demonstrate how facile the argument is. I look forward to your thread where I'll be more than happy to play devil's advocate if we have nobody to champion either position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,492
✟236,333.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I'd love to get into a discussion on the weaknesses of what I was saying, but stevevw doesn't seem to understand what the basics were and offered no attempt to demonstrate how facile the argument is. I look forward to your thread where I'll be more than happy to play devil's advocate if we have nobody to champion either position.
Good. It likely will be a few weeks. I'm currently immersed in taking on board recent research on the underlying controls on the Cambrian explosion, with the notion of first starting a thread on that.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Just out of interest if the universe came about by a naturalistic cause which could not guarantee that we humans would not result then how do you think God created the universe to ensure intelligent life came about.
Why a naturalistic cause? Would not a divine contingent cause be equally problematic for your theology?
 
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

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I am not even mentioning anything about God being the cause of fine tuning
...
many people bring up a creative agent or a multiverse as possible causes and no one thinks it is a big deal when discussing the issue on the many sites on the subject as these two ideas are logical ones that can be considered. Both do not have direct support but only a multiverse is entertained as real possible cause by scientists.
That's because there is an explanatory hypothesis based on solid physics that predicts a multiverse, but there is no such hypothesis that predicts a universe creatiing agent.

Please explain the difference between the 'creative agent' you mention as a possible cause, and the God you say you are not mentioning as a possible cause.

In fact it is used as an alternative to fine tuning. I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting that a creative agent could be one alternative to fine tuning and you don't have to be a creationists to suggest this.
No, fine-tuning (or the appearance of fine-tuning) is what has been observed, i.e. facts; you can't have alternative facts. The multiverse or your 'creative agent' are causal explanations of the observations, not alternatives to them.

It seems that the argument gets polarized into those who reject fine tuning altogether or they are called creationists when even non-religious people think the fine tuning points to a possible creative agent behind things. Hoyle was an atheist and he stated “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics.
Polarization of views tends to occur when there are competing explanations in an emotive topic.

You can always find someone who supports a speculative idea. Fred Hoyle was a great astronomer, but was also known for his eccentric views and stubborn refusal to change them when the data changed; his opinions don't reflect mainstream thinking in the field.

If you're considering this from a scientific or just critical thinking approach, just consider the relative merits of the two hypotheses involved. For example, in what way is the 'creative agent' hypothesis better than the 'magic' hypothesis?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Just out of interest if the universe came about by a naturalistic cause which could not guarantee that we humans would not result then how do you think God created the universe to ensure intelligent life came about.
You could have your cake and eat it by having God continue to create naturalistic universes until intelligent life came about. Of course, this would just be another multiverse hypothesis, with all the same metaphysical problems and a spurious supernatural entity...

But that is begging the question with the post-hoc fallacy of assuming that humans (or intelligent life) were the goal. Looking at the universe, it seems better set up to produce black holes than intelligent life.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
That seems a bit of a contrast compared to what I have read on the subject. Regardless of what can be made out of the fine tuning issue most find it a big deal at least at first. British physicist David Deutsch says
If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.
The extremely low entropy state at the big bang is also surprising and unlikely given our current understanding of cosmological processes. What that means is that we don't understand it well enough yet. The same applies to the appearance of fine-tuning. It's a big deal because it's an important aspect of the fundamental physics of the universe that we don't yet understand well enough to explain.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why a naturalistic cause? Would not a divine contingent cause be equally problematic for your theology?
Yes but that seems like a contradiction. If a divine cause was chance then there would be no guarantee of intelligent life. In fact there would be no guarantee of a universe for intelligent life. Why would God take such a gamble.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You could have your cake and eat it by having God continue to create naturalistic universes until intelligent life came about. Of course, this would just be another multiverse hypothesis, with all the same metaphysical problems and a spurious supernatural entity...

But that is begging the question with the post-hoc fallacy of assuming that humans (or intelligent life) were the goal. Looking at the universe, it seems better set up to produce black holes than intelligent life.
Maybe becuase life has eventuated in a universe that looks like it is more likely to produce black holes and other hostile events is all the more amazing. I am trying to establish what conditions would have been required for a God to produce life in our universe. I would imagine if there was a creative God then he must have included some way of ensuring that intelligent life would eventuate.
 
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

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
So therefore I would imagine if there was a creative God then he must have included some way of ensuring that life would eventuate.
Pretty far-fetched, ain't it?

Even if a 'creative God' fine-tuned the parameters of the universe to be how we observe them, it produces a very hostile universe; there is no guarantee that intelligent life would result.

...I am not even mentioning anything about God being the cause of fine tuning...
BTW, I notice you've changed from 'creative agent' to 'creative God'. You previously said you weren't doing that - why the change?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Maybe becuase life has eventuated in a universe that looks like it is more likely to produce black holes and other hostile events is all the more amazing. I am trying to establish what conditions would have been required for a God to produce life in our universe. I would imagine if there was a creative God then he must have included some way of ensuring that intelligent life would eventuate.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that if the goal was to produce intelligent life, an intelligent omnipotent creator would create an unnecessarily vast and overwhelmingly empty and hostile universe, with an unnecessarily low starting entropy, that seemingly preferentially favours black hole formation, with the requirement to tweak the physical constants to within very narrow ranges - and then, even on a suitably habitable planet, there would be no guarantee of achieving the goal?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Pretty far-fetched, ain't it?
Even if a 'creative God' fine-tuned the parameters of the universe to be how we observe them, it produces a very hostile universe; there is no guarantee that intelligent life would result.
That's right which makes it even more amazing that life could have been produced in our little corner of the universe.

BTW, I notice you've changed from 'creative agent' to 'creative God'. You previously said you weren't doing that - why the change?
Whats the difference between creative agent and creative God they both still imply some supernatural ID behind things. I said I am not trying to directly prove that God created life as that would be impossible. But I also said that even non-religious people/scientists pose the question and idea that things like the fine tuning can be indirect evidence for a creative agent just like they can point to a multiverse. This seems like a reasonable and logical proposition and one that should be included in this topic.

The problem for those who believe in creator God is trying to separate their personal beliefs from what can be scientifically supported. But even non-religious people can be influenced by their personal beliefs in how they see things. That is why there are calls for philosophy to be more included in issues like how sis life and the universe come about as they are so closely intertwined and hard to separate sometimes.
 
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

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Doesn't it strike you as odd that if the goal was to produce intelligent life, an intelligent omnipotent creator would create an unnecessarily vast and overwhelmingly empty and hostile universe, with an unnecessarily low starting entropy, that seemingly preferentially favours black hole formation, with the requirement to tweak the physical constants to within very narrow ranges - and then, even on a suitably habitable planet, there would be no guarantee of achieving the goal?
That is why some make the case for fine tuning as being indirect support for a creative agent behind things. At the end of the day if existence and life was the result of a creator then at some point there had to be some contribution from them. From a believers perspective the bible says that God created us to have relationship with him. So we were intended.

So maybe a universe as we know it today was the only type that could have produced life if God uses natural processes as part of creation. That means we have to include block holes to get life. But there is some purpose to the universe as well. This is different to how atheists see things in that the universe has no purpose. As Dawkins says The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

Scientists stalk about the universe having a beginning and they mention that even from the very beginning the parameters for our universe and life had to have been set right to ensure they panned out to produce what we have today. So the question is how could those specific parameters be there from the very beginning if we only have one universe. Seems as some say that someone has messed around with things. Otherwise we have to go with a multiverse where those specific parameters for intelligent life were eventually going to happen in one universe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0