A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

So what's going on currently in this thread?

DogmaHunter said:

Does it really need pointing out?

Here's what he said: So, there are two choices for atheists. Either ...<snip>.., or ...<snip>...

Why would he assume only 2 choices?
What about all the other choices that we don't know about yet? (that's where he argues from ignorance).

What about option 3: "we don't know yet"?

Click to expand...

Option 3 can be used for everything even to deny evolution without good cause. You can use that even when you prove something through maths for example. If we used option 3 in the past humanity would have gotten nowhere. You cant even accept the theory of gravity with option 3. "Hey look when i drop a ball it falls to the ground!" "Nah option 3 we dont know yet". It is in essence a cop out.

Damian79 said:

Option 3 can be used for everything even to deny evolution without good cause. You can use that even when you prove something through maths for example. If we used option 3 in the past humanity would have gotten nowhere. You cant even accept the theory of gravity with option 3. "Hey look when i drop a ball it falls to the ground!" "Nah option 3 we dont know yet". It is in essence a cop out.

Click to expand...

No. It's not a cop out. It's intellectual honesty.

Without evidence, one can come up with essentially an infinite amount of "possible" explanations. If you want to narrow it down to only a handfull and literally exclude all other options, then that in itself requires good reason. ie, evidence.

"don't know" is a perfectly valid and honest answer when one doesn't know.

As for human accomplishments in the past... "we don't know, let's find out" is what brings about progress. That's how you learn and discover new things.

Not by arbitrarily limiting the scope of possible explanations.

DogmaHunter said:

No. It's not a cop out. It's intellectual honesty.

Without evidence, one can come up with essentially an infinite amount of "possible" explanations. If you want to narrow it down to only a handfull and literally exclude all other options, then that in itself requires good reason. ie, evidence.

"don't know" is a perfectly valid and honest answer when one doesn't know.

As for human accomplishments in the past... "we don't know, let's find out" is what brings about progress. That's how you learn and discover new things.

Not by arbitrarily limiting the scope of possible explanations.

Click to expand...

And that is exactly what the other guy did use evidence to narrow down the options. Secondly i disagree about the progress part, progress comes from accepting an option for the time being and then changing it as we understand more, we've been doing it for millennias.

Damian79 said:

Option 3 can be used for everything even to deny evolution without good cause. You can use that even when you prove something through maths for example. If we used option 3 in the past humanity would have gotten nowhere. You cant even accept the theory of gravity with option 3. "Hey look when i drop a ball it falls to the ground!" "Nah option 3 we dont know yet". It is in essence a cop out.

Click to expand...

How are you supposed to cure ignorance if you don't know what you are ignorant of.

Damian79 said:

Option 3 can be used for everything even to deny evolution without good cause. You can use that even when you prove something through maths for example. If we used option 3 in the past humanity would have gotten nowhere. You cant even accept the theory of gravity with option 3. "Hey look when i drop a ball it falls to the ground!" "Nah option 3 we dont know yet". It is in essence a cop out.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously saying it is possible to watch a ball fall to the ground and then deny it happened because you don't understand why it happened?

What you should be saying is "Hey look when I drop a ball it falls to the ground because <unevidenced assertion>!" "Nah option 3 we don't know yet"

Once you examine the evidence and come up with an answer, option 3 is no longer valid unless you question the conclusion being drawn from the analysis of the evidence.

Loudmouth said:

How are you supposed to cure ignorance if you don't know what you are ignorant of.

Click to expand...

Because eventually the evidence wont fit the data.

EDIT: OR should i say that current theories wont fit the data. Thank you bhsmte.

Damian79 said:

Because eventually the evidence wont fit the data.

Click to expand...

Data is evidence.

Bungle_Bear said:

Are you seriously saying it is possible to watch a ball fall to the ground and then deny it happened because you don't understand why it happened?

What you should be saying is "Hey look when I drop a ball it falls to the ground because <unevidenced assertion>!" "Nah option 3 we don't know yet"

Once you examine the evidence and come up with an answer, option 3 is no longer valid unless you question the conclusion being drawn from the analysis of the evidence.

Click to expand...

I am saying that is what they are doing. They are saying that we are cutting out options when we have no evidence but we DO have evidence of fine tuning. Now perhaps another alien species created the universe and they came from an older random universe that is an option. But fine tuning dictates that something created it.

Damian79 said:

And that is exactly what the other guy did use evidence to narrow down the options.

Click to expand...

Baseless assertions, religious statements, strawmen and false dichotomies are not evidence.

Secondly i disagree about the progress part, progress comes from accepting an option for the time being and then changing it as we understand more, we've been doing it for millennias.

Click to expand...

We wouldn't understand more if we just went with whatever option we pulled out of thin air. We need to question and acknowledge ignorance before we can engage on a quest to learn more.

Fine tuning are not baseless assertions:

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars


Now you can deny these all you want but it is equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Now fine tuning has also been used for the case against God, you are better off on that line of thought.

We wouldn't understand more if we just went with whatever option we pulled out of thin air. We need to question and acknowledge ignorance before we can engage on a quest to learn more.

Click to expand...

Oh i agree here.

Damian79 said:

Fine tuning are not baseless assertions:

Click to expand...

They are.

Tuning implies a tuner.

You could say that the parameters of the universe are such that life in the universe is possible.

You can't call them "tuned" and imply a "tuner".
Obviously, the parameters of the universe must have some value. Just because the current values are what they are doesn't mean you get to assume that they were tinkered with so that they would become what they are.

Now you can deny these all you want but it is equivalent of sticking your head in the sand

Click to expand...

I have no issues with acknowledging that if the parameters would be different that the universe would be different. And I have no issues with acknowledging that in such a universe, life might be impossible.

If things would be different, things would be different.

None of this makes it appropriate to just assume tuning by a tuner.

Now fine tuning has also been used for the case against God, you are better off on that line of thought.

Click to expand...

Never encountered that. I'm not really interested either. I don't need a case against something that is claimed to exist. I need a case FOR it.

Lack of a case FOR it, is enough reason for me to not accept it. The presence of a case against it sure helps to reinforce rejecting it, but I don't require it.

The burden of proof is on those who claim the existence of a deity.

I'm not sure whether or not you are talking across purposes here. DogmaHunter is not denying that the reason why the parameters are the way they are currently remains unknown. Many people call this "the fine-tuning problem." DogmaHunter appears to suggest that calling this "the fine-tuning problem" implies a certain presupposed answer (i.e., a fine-tuner). In other words, naming a problem after one possible solution is a way of stacking the deck in favour of that solution. He is basically saying that to call it "fine-tuning" is misleading because it implies that the answer is already known when it is not.

Archaeopteryx said:

I'm not sure whether or not you are talking across purposes here. DogmaHunter is not denying that the reason why the parameters are the way they are currently remains unknown. Many people call this "the fine-tuning problem." DogmaHunter appears to suggest that calling this "the fine-tuning problem" implies a certain presupposed answer (i.e., a fine-tuner). In other words, naming a problem after one possible solution is a way of stacking the deck in favour of that solution. He is basically saying that to call it "fine-tuning" is misleading because it implies that the answer is already known when it is not.

Click to expand...

Perfect.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

DogmaHunter said:

Perfect.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Click to expand...

It's similar to how some apologists insist on the word "creation" instead of "universe," only to ask "How do explain creation without a Creator?"

I see. What would you guys calls it?

Damian79 said:

I see. What would you guys calls it?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure we need to actually give it a name.

I don't see how the values of these "parameters" are a problem in any way... They MUST have some value. We humans have a tendency to put special value on this specific configuration, but that's just something between our ears. It's teleological nonsense.

What we need to do is continue researching the origins of the universe. I think that once we understand the origins of the universe, we will understand why the universe is the way it is.

The whole idea of the "fine-tuning problem" is rooted in the fallacious idea that the universe is objectively "special" in some way, that there is some kind of "purpose" for it to be the way it is.

I think that is a notion that is not in evidence. It's just an unwarranted assumption.

It could be that the universe couldn't be any other way.
It could be that this universe is just one of many and that we happen to live in the one in which we can live (no surprises there...).


In short, it's not clear to me at all why the values of the parameters would require any kind of "special" explanation.

However, I do understand why theists are so hung up on it. It's one of the last bastions where they can insert their deity of choice and mask it as some kind of intelligent argument. But it's fallacious nonetheless.

Theists, off course, have a priori beliefs regarding the universe and its origins. They have a priori beliefs of why homo sapiens exist. Not only that, they are even required to believe that the universe was made with humans in mind and that humans themselves were purposefully created (one way or the other). It's not surprising that they would engage in teleological arguments to try and make sense of the universe and everything it contains, in such a way that it matches their a priori beliefs.

I don't have such a priori beliefs. For me, all options are open. I see no reason to try and stack the deck. I'll go where the reasonable research and data takes me. I have no motivation or desire to push it in a specific direction. I have no emotional attachment to any specific outcome of the studies.

But again, I'm not convinced that these parameters are any kind of real "problem" to begin with. Again, the parameters must have some value. And I don't see why these particular values require more (or less) explanation then any other configuration.

Hey DogmaHunter, your Dogma that the Fine Tuning can be solved with physical necessity is wrong.

Consider the alternative, physical necessity.
This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.

DogmaHunter said:

I'm not sure we need to actually give it a name.

Click to expand...

We can call it Universe or no Universe, if we change the Hubble Constant there would be no Universe at all.

DogmaHunter said:

I don't see how the values of these "parameters" are a problem in any way... They MUST have some value. We humans have a tendency to put special value on this specific configuration, but that's just something between our ears. It's teleological nonsense.

Click to expand...

Anthropic Principle really? Without Multiverses the Anthropic Principle goes to garbage! The Universe is Homogeneous.

DogmaHunter said:

What we need to do is continue researching the origins of the universe. I think that once we understand the origins of the universe, we will understand why the universe is the way it is.

Click to expand...

Here the dogmatist Materialist hopes to find a physical explaination when Science says that there was nothing physical as the origin of the Universe, lol.

DogmaHunter said:

The whole idea of the "fine-tuning problem" is rooted in the fallacious idea that the universe is objectively "special" in some way, that there is some kind of "purpose" for it to be the way it is.

Click to expand...

Lol! So you have other Universes to compare it and say that it is not special? No special according to what? Nothingness? What do you have to compare the Universe and say it is not special? Even you are part of the Universe!

DogmaHunter said:

I think that is a notion that is not in evidence. It's just an unwarranted assumption.

Click to expand...

Atheists that accept the Fine Tuning for Intelligent Life

DogmaHunter said:

It could be that the universe couldn't be any other way.

Click to expand...

The Universe is not due to Physical Necessity.

DogmaHunter said:

It could be that this universe is just one of many and that we happen to live in the one in which we can live (no surprises there...).

Click to expand...

Aren't you bored to use the same arguments again and again? Ins your faith on Multiverses unshakable?

Is the fine-tuning due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of randomly ordered universes of which our universe is but a part. Now comes the key move: since observers can exist only in finely tuned worlds, of course we observe our universe to be fine-tuned!

​

So this explanation of fine-tuning relies on (i) the existence of a specific type of World Ensemble and (ii) an observer self-selection effect. Now this explanation, wholly apart from objections to (i), faces a very formidable objection to (ii), namely, the Boltzmann Brain problem. In order to be observable the entire universe need not be fine-tuned for our existence. Indeed, it is vastly more probable that a random fluctuation of mass-energy would yield a universe dominated by Boltzmann Brain observers than one dominated by ordinary observers like ourselves. In other words, the observer self-selection effect is explanatorily vacuous. As Robin Collins has noted, what needs to be explained is not just intelligent life, but embodied, interactive, intelligent agents like ourselves.[21] Appeal to an observer self-selection effect accomplishes nothing because there’s no reason whatever to think that most observable worlds or the most probable observable worlds are worlds in which that kind of observer exists. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: most observable worlds will be Boltzmann Brain worlds.
Since we presumably are not Boltzmann Brains, that fact strongly disconfirms a naturalistic World Ensemble or multiverse hypothesis.

DogmaHunter said:

In short, it's not clear to me at all why the values of the parameters would require any kind of "special" explanation.

Click to expand...

Susskind that trashed Hawking tries to solve the Fine Tuning, obviously he thinks that it is a problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

DogmaHunter said:

However, I do understand why theists are so hung up on it. It's one of the last bastions where they can insert their deity of choice and mask it as some kind of intelligent argument. But it's fallacious nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Sorry Random Cosmic mistake but you failed to present ANYTHING random that would destroy the argument that the Universe IS a creation that demands a transcendent cause and not a physical one since it is finite. Your faith that you are a random cosmic mistake without purpose or free will that nothingness spewed is baseless on Science, it is a depressive delusion that you want to be true because you have some psychological issues (you probably think yourself as a big zero or something or you are a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]). Science says that the Universe is a Deterministic event that unfolded like a Domino set. To remove Intention from the Creation you must prove that the Universe is a random mistake that was created indeterminately, i don't know how this can happen, how randomness can determine anything when determinism is the opposite of randomness.

DogmaHunter said:

Theists, off course, have a priori beliefs regarding the universe and its origins. They have a priori beliefs of why homo sapiens exist. Not only that, they are even required to believe that the universe was made with humans in mind and that humans themselves were purposefully created (one way or the other). It's not surprising that they would engage in teleological arguments to try and make sense of the universe and everything it contains, in such a way that it matches their a priori beliefs.

Click to expand...

Atheists, off course, have a priori beliefs regarding the universe and its origins. They have a priori beliefs of why homo sapiens exist. Not only that, they are even required to believe that the universe was not made with humans in mind and that humans themselves were random created (creation is not a true use of the word here, atheists don't believe in creation but in accidents). It's not surprising that they would engage in random arguments to try and make sense of the universe and everything it contains, in such a way that it matches their a priori beliefs that they are random cosmic mistakes that nothingness spewed without purpose.

DogmaHunter said:

I don't have such a priori beliefs. For me, all options are open. I see no reason to try and stack the deck. I'll go where the reasonable research and data takes me. I have no motivation or desire to push it in a specific direction. I have no emotional attachment to any specific outcome of the studies.

Click to expand...

OF COURSE ALL OPTIONS ARE OPEN! If you believe that from Nothingness can come a Universe YOU CAN BELIEVE ANYTHING! As a wise man said "If you don't believe in God you can believe ANYTHING"
You have the desire that you are a random cosmic mistake that nothingness spewed.

DogmaHunter said:

But again, I'm not convinced that these parameters are any kind of real "problem" to begin with.

Click to expand...

Atheists Scientists which the Fine Tuning is part of their Job disagree with you.

DogmaHunter said:

Again, the parameters must have some value. And I don't see why these particular values require more (or less) explanation then any other configuration.

Click to expand...

That's the Anthropic Principle again. The Universe MUST be like this because if it was different there would be no human observers. That argument is nonsense without a Multiverse, also some constants account for the whole Universe etc Cosmological Constant, Hubble Constant and so on..

Atheists are wrong about Materialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Atheists are wrong about Materialism

Them it's a good thing that atheists generally aren't materialists as defined in the video. Atheists are typically knowledgeable about at least the basics of quantum mechanics, and accept wave/particle duality and non-local effects. You are kicking a dead horse.

Something that you should be aware of is that it is not considered scientific fact that a conscious mind is required to collapse a wave function. All that is required is some "measurement" -- a physical interaction -- with the wave function.

Journal of Cosmology

The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers, (Bell, 1984).

Idealism, as defined in the video, has not been strongly supported. It is not a scientific fact.


eudaimonia,

Mark

JimFit, you didn't read my post with much attention, did you?

I'm not arguing for any particular thing (like the anthropic principle or whatever).

I'm arguing for we don't know.

Your very first statement made it clear that you didn't understand what I said (or simply ignored what I said):

your Dogma that the Fine Tuning can be solved with physical necessity is wrong

Click to expand...

I clearly stated that I don't even see a problem that requires solving.
As said, the parameters of the universe must have some value. The whole idea of calling this a "problem" assumes that the current values are somehow "special" and somehow require more explanation then a universe with different values. I don't see why that is the case.

Furthermore, to call this the "fine tuning problem", is to assume the answer before asking the question.

You could ask "why is the universe the way it is?". That's a sensible question.
To ask "why is the universe fine-tuned" is not a sensible question. That's a loaded question.

This has nothing to do with materialism, necessity, anthropic principles, many universe interpretations,.... and everything with we don't know.

Furthermore, I consistently see theists make the argument of "if you change this parameter here then that and that would be different". Well... obviously. If things would be different, then things would be different... Big whoop. What of it? How does that make the point that how things actually are is "special" and requires "special explanation"?

It seems to me that theists make these arguments only because of their a priori beliefs that the univere IS special. That the parameters ARE special. You never concluded this after objective and honest study. You just assume this due to your a priori faith-based beliefs.

I don't share those beliefs. I don't make those assumptions.

I'll agree that the values require a special explanation once it is demonstrated that the values in fact are special. Not a second sooner.