A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

So why bother with it? Atheists won't be convinced and theists don't need it.

I guess its the way I think with investigating things. I don't think my faith depends on finding evidence for God. I guess it depends on a persons personal experiences and personality. I think there are many who think similar and will have varying degrees of interest in trying to find support for God. I may go through a period of doing this and then move onto something different. The God and evolution debate is one of the greatest topics throughout history so it must be something people are drawn to.

 

[Speedwell]

I guess its the way I think with investigating things. I don't think my faith depends on finding evidence for God. I guess it depends on a persons personal experiences and personality. I think there are many who think similar and will have varying degrees of interest in trying to find support for God. I may go through a period of doing this and then move onto something different. The God and evolution debate is one of the greatest topics throughout history so it must be something people are drawn to.

Yeah, but you've left off talking about evolution and in any case there never was a "God and evolution" debate. It's always been the Bible and evolution debate.

 

[46AND2]

I thought it was about the water being fluid and therefore it can fit any hole. The idea is because the puddle fits the hole and the hole must have been made for the puddle.

I think you need to reread the analogy.

My argument for a creative agent will always seem unconvincing as it cannot be verified directly.

Then it is useless.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, but you've left off talking about evolution and in any case there never was a "God and evolution" debate. It's always been the Bible and evolution debate.

Yeah I've gone off topic a bit. But I think it can relate to the OP in that just like proteins for example they can have specific structures as opposed to any possible non-functional protein the fine tuned universe can have specific physics as opposed to any number of possible physical constants.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yeah I've gone off topic a bit. But I think it can relate to the OP in that just like proteins for example they can have specific structures as opposed to any possible non-functional protein the fine tuned universe can have specific physics as opposed to any number of possible physical constants.

Can you demonstrate "any number of possible physical constants" beyond the ones we have? Or do you think that ignoring the question will make it go away?

 

[Kylie]

How could you possibly do that?

Priceless!

 

[stevevw]

It's kind of the whole point of the analogy...the puddle sees its hole as being specially made for it.

Ah made by who. If the puddle thinks that someone has made the hole is not that implying ID.

How could you possibly do that?

By the fact that naturalism works on chance. So that means the big bang is a chaotic and chance event and the outcome which is our universe could have ended up in a number of possible states. It just so happens that it ended up with our universe that permits intelligent life. But it could have ended up not permitting life as well.

1. First of all, our "universe" doesn't have the exact physical makeup to produce and sustain life. An extremely tiny portion of our universe does.

Actually the conditions of the universe from the first split second needed to be just right to even produce a universe right for life. The conditions had to be right to create the right sort of stars fro example to produce life as we are suppose to be made from the same stuff as stars. If the weak nuclear force constant was smaller there would be too little helium from big bang and therefore stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible. That's just one but there are several constants if slightly changed would not produce the right stars for life.

2. When you talk about life, really, you are talking about life as we know it.

Fine tuning is talking about intelligent life.

3. You still have not demonstrated that it is even possible for there to be other physical constants

Then what do scientists mean when they for example say if the gravitational force constant is larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. Are they making this up.

4. We don't know if we are the only universe

Therefore we can only go by what we know which is our universe. We will never know if there are other universes as it is impossible to directly verify this. If we waited for some far off discoveries some which may never be found before we made any hypothesis then we would stop all science. But scientists still make claims about things and they don't let unknown possibilities stop them. They deal with what they know and then will adjust things is further data is found.

When you put that together, there are many other possible answers to your question than intelligent design. Maybe there are infinite opportunities for such constants to exist, maybe there is only one, Maybe there is more intelligent life capable of living in different conditions. There simply is not enough information available from the fine tuning argument to conclude anything about a tuner.

But at the same time there is not evidence to show that these possibilities exists either. So all we can do is go with what we know now. Once again why do scientists say that is we vary things like the ratio of electron to proton mass to be any larger chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry. Surely they know how to calculate these things at least on paper.

Good, I'm glad we agree in that at least...cause that is exactly what ID does; appeals to non-verified situations.

I agree but the problem is scientists still want to appeal to a multiverse counter the fine tuning issue. So it seems they are doing what people accuse Christians of doing but it seems they can get away with it. IE

Consider, likewise, the cutting-edge theory in physics that suggests that our universe is just one universe in a profusion of separate universes that make up the so-called multiverse. This theory could help solve some deep scientific conundrums about our own universe (such as the so-called fine-tuning problem), but at considerable cost: Namely, the additional universes of the multiverse would lie beyond our powers of observation and could never be directly investigated. Multiverse advocates argue nonetheless that we should keep exploring the idea — and search for indirect evidence of other universes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html

So scientists are happy to use indirect evidence to support their theories but won't allow indirect evidence such as fine tuning.

God is a non-verified situation.

Yes I agree but so is multiverses and that does not stop scientists from using them.

This tuning implies variable constants. In order for the fine-tuning argument to work, you have to demonstrate that the constants are not actually constant. And I don't mean actually showing that they vary in our universe, I mean showing that there is a possibility they COULD be different....anywhere.

So when the science makes calculations that show a constant and then what happens when it is varied is this not evidence. Not all verification is observed in action.

Again I ask the question: how can you possibly know the odds of our universe being the way it is, if you can't even quantify the different ways that it could be? For all we know, the odds could be 1 in 1.

Then I have to ask again why do scientists pose a multiverse to account for our fine tuned universe. It seems they can offer non-verified ideas that claim there are many universes with varying constants but we cannot pose the idea that there is only one universe with fine tuned values for life.

Sure, you can arbitrarily change numbers around, but we have no idea if those changes reflect a possibility in reality or not.

I would have thought that using a naturalist approach to science inherently assumes that there are variables that must be included in our reality. Otherwise if there are none then things begin to look designed by only having one specific outcome.

 

[Speedwell]

By the fact that naturalism works on chance. So that means the big bang is a chaotic and chance event and the outcome which is our universe could have ended up in a number of possible states. It just so happens that it ended up with our universe that permits intelligent life. But it could have ended up not permitting life as well.

Are you referencing the metaphysical naturalism of atheism or the methodological naturalism of science? The first has no bearing on our present discussion.

And why do you suppose that the Big Bang was chaotic, rather than an orderly expansion?

I would have thought that using a naturalist approach to science inherently assumes that there are variables that must be included in our reality. Otherwise if there are none then things begin to look designed by only having one specific outcome.

So if a process has only one possible outcome you take that as evidence of intelligent design?

 

[stevevw]

It is not irrelevant to the fine tuning argument. You have admitted that we cannot know if the cosmological constant can have any value other than the one it has, yet your fine tuning argument requires that we know that it is a possibility.

Then why do non-religious scientists make a big deal out of it. Why do they take it so seriously that they pose a multiverse to explain fine tuning.

That may be true, but it is irrelevant. Show me any evidence that the cosmological value can be different to what it is here, in our universe. No scientist has made that claim, they have just done some mathematical modelling of theoretical differences. Notice the word in bold. It is the most important word in that sentence, and it is the one you are refusing to acknowledge.

I answered this question in my previous post. I said we cannot verify constants directly (ie see other variables and test them) as to verify directly would mean being in a reality that had different values and we cannot do that. So I guess we can only make theoretical equations that they may vary. My question would be why would scientists make a big deal out of the fine tuning then. Where I find it hard to work out is that scientists cannot empirically test all their theories yet they stand by them. This is especially true in quantum physics. Why would scientists use a multiverse to counter the fine tuning when it is not verified.

 

[Speedwell]

Then why do non-religious scientists make a big deal out of it. Why do they take it so seriously that they pose a multiverse to explain fine tuning.

I answered this question in my previous post. I said we cannot verify constants directly (ie see other variables and test them) as to verify directly would mean being in a reality that had different values and we cannot do that. So I guess we can only make theoretical equations that they may vary. My question would be why would scientists make a big deal out of the fine tuning then. Where I find it hard to work out is that scientists cannot empirically test all their theories yet they stand by them. This is especially true in quantum physics. Why would scientists use a multiverse to counter the fine tuning when it is not verified.

Yes, evil atheistic scientists made up the multiverse theory to counter the irresistible "fine tuning" argument for the existence of God.

 

[46AND2]

Ah made by who. If the puddle thinks that someone has made the hole is not that implying ID.

Glad we could finally come to an agreement that the ID argument is just like the puddle analogy.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Then why do non-religious scientists make a big deal out of it. Why do they take it so seriously that they pose a multiverse to explain fine tuning.

They don't do either of those things. Your lack of understanding does nothing to change reality.

I answered this question in my previous post. I said we cannot verify constants directly (ie see other variables and test them) as to verify directly would mean being in a reality that had different values and we cannot do that. So I guess we can only make theoretical equations that they may vary. My question would be why would scientists make a big deal out of the fine tuning then. Where I find it hard to work out is that scientists cannot empirically test all their theories yet they stand by them. This is especially true in quantum physics. Why would scientists use a multiverse to counter the fine tuning when it is not verified.

As I said above, they don't. You really should do some research before pontificating on subjects about which you obviously know very little.

 

[stevevw]

You don't really know that--although it's clear that you welcome any opportunity to characterize "naturalism" in that way.

I thought this was how scientists have always described how nature works. Look at what Dawkins says
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

As far as I have read the big bang created a chaotic expansion which could have ended up leading to a number of possibilities.
After Big Bang Came Moment of Pure Chaos, Study Finds
"The general result of this paper is that, contrary to what some previous studies have suggested, different observers would still agree about the chaotic nature of the universe," study leader Adilson Motter told SPACE.com. "Now we establish once and for all that it is chaotic."
"If you change just a little bit one of the contractions, then you'd have an entirely different sequence of expansions and contractions,"
After Big Bang Came Moment of Pure Chaos, Study Finds | Space

 

[stevevw]

Glad we could finally come to an agreement that the ID argument is just like the puddle analogy.

I think you misunderstood my reply. My reply was
Ah made by who. If the puddle thinks that someone has made the hole is not that implying ID.

I asked made by who. I asked if the puddle thinks someone made the hole doesn't this point to ID. Doesn't this support ID.

 

[46AND2]

Doesn't this support ID.

Is that really what you meant to say? That a silly fictional story is support for ID? Doesn't really say much for ID, then, does it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. Where I find it hard to work out is that scientists cannot empirically test all their theories yet they stand by them. This is especially true in quantum physics.

Ah, no. Quantum physics happens to be the most thoroughly empirically tested theory in science.

You're also ignoring everything I've explained to you about scientific opinion re multiverse hypotheses and the appearance of fine-tuning.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think you misunderstood my reply. My reply was
Ah made by who. If the puddle thinks that someone has made the hole is not that implying ID.

I asked made by who. I asked if the puddle thinks someone made the hole doesn't this point to ID. Doesn't this support ID.

No, quite the opposite - that's the point of the puddle analogy, it's a humorous way of pointing out the mistake of people who think that because their environment supports their kind of life it must be made for them.

The puddle marvels at how exactly the hole fits itself, but we know that it's really the puddle that fits the hole, and that a puddle will always find it exactly fits the hole it's in, whatever the shape of the hole [the hole represents any environment that can support observers, which are represented by the puddle].

IOW, it plays on the implications of the Weak Anthropic Principle.

In terms of the Fine Tuning argument, it's like the puddle trying to calculate the probability of there being a hole at all, when all it knows is the dimensions of its own hole and some rough ideas of how holes might form; i.e., "what is the probability that the depth of the hole is greater than zero?"

 

[stevevw]

They don't do either of those things. Your lack of understanding does nothing to change reality.

As I said above, they don't. You really should do some research before pontificating on subjects about which you obviously know very little.

Then how do you explain these
Paul Davies
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.
Hugh Ross
“What several decades of research has revealed about Earth's location within the vastness of the cosmos can be summed up in this statement: the ideal place for any kind of life as we know it turns out to be a solar system like ours, within a galaxy like the Milky Way, within a supercluster of galaxies like the Virgo supercluster, within a super-supercluster like the Laniakea super-supercluser. In other words we happen to live in the best, perhaps the one and only, neighborhood that allows not only for physical life's existence but also for it's enduring survival.”
― Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home
Martin Rees
“These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.”
Leonard Susskind
"The great mystery is not why there is dark energy. The great mystery is why there is so little of it [10−122]... The fact that we are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy were very much bigger we wouldn’t be here, that's the mystery.
QR4.8.2 Our Fine-Tuned Universe – Thinkers Corner
Fred Hoyle
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect 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 over-whelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Lee Smolin
“Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10 to the power of 229.”

Why do many articles say that in the last 40 years scientists have found that our physical constants are just right for permitting life. Then go into detail about the constants and if they vary will not permit life. Why make a big deal out of this.

Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/07/stephen-hawking-god-multiverse-cosmology

In the past 40 or so years, a strange fact about our Universe gradually made itself known to scientists: the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of our Universe, are fine-tuned for the possibility of life.
Cosmopsychism explains why the Universe is fine-tuned for life | Aeon Essays

Now here is how scientists use the multiverse to counter the fine tuning.
Stephen Hawking defended a naturalistic explanation of fine-tuning in terms of the multiverse hypothesis. According to the multiverse hypothesis, the universe we live in is just one of an enormous, perhaps infinite, number of universes. If there are enough universes then it becomes not so improbable that at least one will chance upon the right laws for life.
Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

Meissner acknowledges that the research does not answer why the values are what they are. To explain this, some physicists invoke a concept called the "multiverse," in which "parallel" universes with many different possible values of the constants exist, and we, unsurprisingly, find ourselves in one in which complex life can evolve. Meissner says his team's work "gives some credit" to this concept, but does not explain how the many universes would be generated.
A More Finely Tuned Universe

 

[Speedwell]

I thought this was how scientists have always described how nature works. Look at what Dawkins says
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

A statement from a metaphysical naturalist. And you conclude from it that all scientists are metaphysical naturalists. But all that he is really saying is that you will find no proof of God in nature.

 

[stevevw]

No, quite the opposite - that's the point of the puddle analogy, it's a humorous way of pointing out the mistake of people who think that because their environment supports their kind of life it must be made for them.

The puddle marvels at how exactly the hole fits itself, but we know that it's really the puddle that fits the hole, and that a puddle will always find it exactly fits the hole it's in, whatever the shape of the hole [the hole represents any environment that can support observers, which are represented by the puddle].

IOW, it plays on the implications of the Weak Anthropic Principle.

In terms of the Fine Tuning argument, it's like the puddle trying to calculate the probability of there being a hole at all, when all it knows is the dimensions of its own hole and some rough ideas of how holes might form; i.e., "what is the probability that the depth of the hole is greater than zero?"

But isn't the fine tuning argument based on the strong Anthropic principle.