A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Eudaimonist]

Isn't this the same kind of argument from ignorance that dad uses to justify his "past state" nonsense?

I remember "dad", but I don't remember that particular argument.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance. That sort of argument declares a proposition true because it has not yet been proven false. That's not what I'm saying.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Strathos]

I remember "dad", but I don't remember that particular argument.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance. That sort of argument declares a proposition true because it has not yet been proven false. That's not what I'm saying.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Dad often says "We don't know if the laws of physics and the way the universe operates were the same in the past or out in space, and you can't know that for sure, that means everything in the Bible is literally true, it just happened back when those things were possible."

You're saying "We don't know if the laws of physics and the way the universe operates were the same in the past or out in space, and we can't know for sure, so you can't say the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of human life."

The arguments are very similar.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Dad often says "We don't know if the laws of physics and the way the universe operates were the same in the past or out in space, and you can't know that for sure, that means everything in the Bible is literally true, it just happened back when those things were possible."

You're saying "We don't know if the laws of physics and the way the universe operates were the same in the past or out in space, and we can't know for sure, so you can't say the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of human life."

The arguments are very similar.

No, they aren't. I'm not making a positive claim as dad did. I'm making an argument about what cannot be concluded to be true. It is a very different style of argument. It isn't an argument from ignorance, which only has to do with positive claims.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I can show you that everytime I mix oil and water, the oil ends up on top. Does this require a deity?

No, it requires something (2 things) to actually be there with very specific differing electromagnetic properties.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it requires something (2 things) to actually be there with very specific differing electromagnetic properties.

So why couldn't the consistent production of universes be due to comparable natural processes? Why introduce a deity?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

So why couldn't the consistent production of universes be due to comparable natural processes? Why introduce a deity?

Because the "natural" process is biological. The Deity is the living being that is reproducing. Universe are the embryo's of The God.

The metaverse is like stack of eggs. New ones are formed at the bottom, fulfilled ones at the top are hatching.

 

[Strathos]

No, they aren't. I'm not making a positive claim as dad did. I'm making an argument about what cannot be concluded to be true. It is a very different style of argument. It isn't an argument from ignorance, which only has to do with positive claims.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That's merely a technicality. You could rephrase dad's argument as "we don't know things were always the same, so you can't claim that evidence gathered today applied to the past", then it wouldn't be a positive claim.

 

[Pachomius]

There are many objections to this conjecture, some of which may be found here:

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "fine-tuned" argument for God seems to be based largely on wishful thinking. Yes, our universe can produce life. After all, we are here to ask these questions. That doesn't mean that the universe exists as it does for our benefit.

We don't know just how variable or durable or widespread physical constants are. If the sort of space capable of creating atoms is relatively stable, that may explain why there would be enough time for life to evolve and for us to exist. If physical constants can differ in different regions of physical existence, then there would be even more variation.

This isn't much more than a God of the Gaps style argument. Basically, it amounts to: "you don't have a scientific explanation for the 'fine-tuning', therefore God." It's not much of an argument. It's more of an invitation for theistic imagination.


eudaimonia,

Mark

There you go again, God of the Gaps, that is the cliche, a cue to fellow atheists to go flippant. Now it will not be long before magic, spaghetti, teapot, tooth fairy follow.

Think, you know at most only 4% of the universe, withal you have lived long enough to know that there is order and stability in your nose, it does not fall down you can trust God's perfection on that -- still you cannot draw right away to the fine tuned universe God has created?

So, on just 4% knowledge of the universe, you do not see fine tuning but instead what, chaos in the universe; but hey, that is some chaos, tell that to your doctors and gym instructors, and also to engineers designing skyscrapers who have to depend on God's fine tuning of the universe, otherwise they cannot design anything as to be stable.

I mean with just 4% we know of the universe, the most accomplished of inventors can already bank on that 4% fine turning of the universe to produce what, something like the smartphone.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There you go again, God of the Gaps, that is the cliche, a cue to fellow atheists to go flippant.

It's not a "cliche". It's pointing out the underlying argument from ignorance.

Think, you know at most only 4% of the universe withal you have lived long enough to know that there is order and stability in your nose, it does not fall down you can trust God's perfection on that -- still you cannot draw right away to the fine tuned universe God has created?

It is premature to make any such conclusion, and you are clearly making an appeal to ignorance with that 4% quote. What happens when physicists either falsify dark matter and dark energy or learn precisely what they are, leading physicists to know the makeup of 100% of the universe? And these phenomenon are simply QM phenomena, not particularly more remarkable or revealing than what they had learned already? Will that disprove your God? If not, why should your argument from ignorance mean anything?

So, on just 4% knowledge of the universe, you do not see fine tuning but instead what, chaos in the universe; but hey, that is some chaos, tell that to your doctors and gym instructors, and also to engineers designing skyscrapers who have to depend on God's fine tuning of the universe, otherwise they cannot design anything as to be stable.

Order =/= fine-tuning

There can be order without some intelligent entity to "tune" things. We see spontaneous order in nature that arises from no central planner, from bird flocks to free economies.

I mean with just 4% we know of the universe, the most accomplished of inventors can already bank on that 4% fine turning of the universe to produce what, something like the smartphone.

I'm not suggesting that the universe doesn't have a nature. Of course inventors bank on the universe having a nature. They don't bank on divine entities, because none are needed in order for something that exists to have properties.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Armoured]

I saw a puddle once that existed in an obviously divinely created hole that fit all 3 dimensions of the body of water perfectly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's merely a technicality.

No, it's an important logical distinction.

You could rephrase dad's argument as "we don't know things were always the same, so you can't claim that evidence gathered today applied to the past", then it wouldn't be a positive claim.

No, that wouldn't be rephrasing his argument. You are altering the argument significantly.

In any case, I would simply point out that for the past thirteen or so billion years, in that region of the universe that we can see, it looks reasonable to conclude that the universe worked pretty much like it does now. I would agree with dad that we can't know if it worked precisely the same prior to that time or in some other context. I would not conclude anything about those other times or contexts, since we simply haven't had a chance to form that knowledge yet. Speculation is fine as long as you know that you are only speculating.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Strathos]

No, it's an important logical distinction.



No, that wouldn't be rephrasing his argument. You are altering the argument significantly.

That effectively is his argument, only he's more assertive about it. In fact, often when someone points out a scientific fact that contradicts his ideas he'll say something like "you can't know that."

In any case, I would simply point out that for the past thirteen or so billion years, in that region of the universe that we can see, it looks reasonable to conclude that the universe worked pretty much like it does now. I would agree with dad that we can't know if it worked precisely the same prior to that time or in some other context. I would not conclude anything about those other times or contexts, since we simply haven't had a chance to form that knowledge yet. Speculation is fine as long as you know that you are only speculating.

What speculation do you have about the universe past 13 billion years ago, and past the limit of the visible universe (93 billion light-years IIRC) that could be relevant here?

 

[Eudaimonist]

In fact, often when someone points out a scientific fact that contradicts his ideas he'll say something like "you can't know that."

I don't argue in that way. I simply insist that we have to use inductive logic on what we can observe. We have to be cautious in making statements about what we haven't observed. It sounds like he is arguing from some sort of epistemological nihilism, which I do not.

What speculation do you have about the universe past 13 billion years ago, and past the limit of the visible universe (93 billion light-years IIRC) that could be relevant here?

None that won't lead to the "science gap" refrain. I could point out that there are interesting speculations, such as:

Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe? : Nature News & Comment

A four dimensional black hole is beyond our direct experience, and it would make for a very different sort of existence than what we are familiar with. I'm not saying that I believe this speculation. The reason that it exists at all is that there is math based at least to some extent on what is known that backs up the speculation. Hopefully, testable predictions will follow.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Pachomius]

It's not a "cliche". It's pointing out the underlying argument from ignorance.



It is premature to make any such conclusion, and you are clearly making an appeal to ignorance with that 4% quote. What happens when physicists either falsify dark matter and dark energy or learn precisely what they are, leading physicists to know the makeup of 100% of the universe? And these phenomenon are simply QM phenomena, not particularly more remarkable or revealing than what they had learned already? Will that disprove your God? If not, why should your argument from ignorance mean anything?



Order =/= fine-tuning

There can be order without some intelligent entity to "tune" things. We see spontaneous order in nature that arises from no central planner, from bird flocks to free economies.



I'm not suggesting that the universe doesn't have a nature. Of course inventors bank on the universe having a nature. They don't bank on divine entities, because none are needed in order for something that exists to have properties.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Who is ignorant?

You who close your eyes to the fine tuning in your nose, or everyone else who sees the fine tuning in their nose?

Okay, you say there is in effect only chaos.

Give examples of chaos.

 

[Pachomius]

Here we are on a blue spec floating in a vast sea, which we can see billions of light years in any direction that we are surrounded by lethal amounts of radiation, at temperatures that will instantly freeze any element floating about it. We're on a planet orbiting a sun that will eventually grow to envelop the earth's orbit and beyond... an earth which so far, has only been around for a small fraction of the existence of the universe as we know it. And once our sun finally dies, Andromeda, our sister galaxy, will collide with our galaxy, throwing stars into chaos, and bending the orbits of worlds that may have belonged to them as well. All of this will happen billions of years after you die in a mere 60-80 years... Comparatively, you weren't even here for a blink of an eye. Comparatively, all of humanity wasn't even here for a blink of an eye.

The universe is NOT fine tuned for life or our existence. When you begin to understand the magnitude of the universe, you begin to discover that we're merely "allowed" to exist on this tiny little blue spec for a really short amount of time in a hostile, violent, dangerous, and inherently deadly universe which, if it's designed in anyway regarding human life, it is to extinguish it.

"The universe is NOT fine tuned for life or our existence."

Hah! You know better who never ever had fine tuned anything to exist and live, how presumptuous.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Who is ignorant?

Both you and I are ignorant about certain issues.

You who close your eyes to the fine tuning in your nose, or everyone else who sees the fine tuning in their nose?

I'm not interested in your posturing.

Okay, you say there is in effect only chaos.

I did not say that. The issue that I had raised is emergent order (aka spontaneous order and emergent complexity), which is order that arises from simplicity and without any top-down central planning. This video is worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEaZHWXmbRw


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Pachomius]

What if there were many universes and not just ours? Maybe ours is just one of the few that can support life.

Here they go again, deviating from the reality of existence to fictional universes; go and write fictions.

Just dwell on reality not fictions and see the wonder of your fine tuned anatomy and physiology; don't believe that, then go take up medicine and learn Grey's Anatomy.

It "Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body," not the silly tv show.

 

[Pachomius]

The fine-tuning argument only works if there is only one universe. We have no way of knowing if there are more. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You say it correctly, "We have no way of knowing if there are more [universes], so why busy yourself with them? if you are not happy with the body and life God fine tuned for you, then just wait for 'evolution' to bring you to a better tuning.

In the meantime you can seek to influence evolution -- insanel7, for it is a random process except that the advocates of evolution also conveniently provide for order and stability by slipping in natural selection, hah!

 

[Pachomius]

You might as well argue that every lottery drawing has to be fine tuned so that a specific person/s wins.

That is the proof that God is a free agent, He is not an assembly belt.

 

[Pachomius]

I can show you that everytime I mix oil and water, the oil ends up on top. Does this require a deity?

That is the law of gravity, and God creator of the physical universe ordains it to be so, otherwise you cannot sail in the seas.