Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
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 saysThere 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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'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.
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.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.
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.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.
Why a naturalistic cause? Would not a divine contingent cause be equally problematic for your theology?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.
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.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.
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.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.
Polarization of views tends to occur when there are competing explanations in an emotive topic.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.
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...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.
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.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.
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.Why a naturalistic cause? Would not a divine contingent cause be equally problematic for your theology?
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.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.
Pretty far-fetched, ain't it?So therefore I would imagine if there was a creative God then he must have included some way of ensuring that life would eventuate.
BTW, I notice you've changed from 'creative agent' to 'creative God'. You previously said you weren't doing that - why the change?...I am not even mentioning anything about God being the cause of fine tuning...
Why? What is so special about intelligent life?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?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.
That's right which makes it even more amazing that life could have been produced in our little corner of the universe.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.
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.BTW, I notice you've changed from 'creative agent' to 'creative God'. You previously said you weren't doing that - why the change?
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.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?