Fine tuning, a new approach

[AdamSK]

Don't blame it on science that the supernatural is an unfalsifiable, untestable, unverifiable idea. In terms of explanatory power, it is entirely useless and meaningless for that reason.

I would say the supernatural has excellent explanatory power, but zero predictive power. The scientific method doesn't play well with elusive entities. Which doesn't mean they don't exist; just that our normal methods of examining persistent phenomena may not be easy to apply.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would say the supernatural has excellent explanatory power, but zero predictive power

I don't see how you can have one without the other.

If I can explain a specific phenomena, then I CAN use that explanation to predict things concerning that phenomena. That's literally what "explanation" is all about.

The "explanatory power" of supernatural claims is on par with any other unfalsifiable claim. Like Last Thursday-ism.
Does saying that the universe was created last thursday with all our memories implanted, "explain" the existence/origins of the universe? Does that idea have any explanatory power?

If yes: explain how.
If no: explain how it is any different with supernatural theistic claims.

The scientific method doesn't play well with elusive entities

You mean, "non-demonstrable entities", I assume.

Which doesn't mean they don't exist;

Sure. Not being able to support the claim that an undetectable 7-headed dragon follows me around everywhere I go, also doesn't mean that this dragon doesn't exist.

just that our normal methods of examining persistent phenomena may not be easy to apply.

You mean "impossible to apply". And not because of a problem with our methods, but rather simply because the phenomena in question is deliberatly (and arbitrarily) defined that way, as being untestable.

 

[KCfromNC]

From all that, it follows that if God created the universe.... he had to be "fine tuned" to even only be able to do so.


Please point out the flaw in that reasoning, if you disagree...

The flaw is "but god is different because I say so". Duh.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You think the sky looks like a n-dimensional, mostly empty, filled with plasma, electromagnetical radiation and all kinds of very very strange stuff space-time continuum?

Which is important because God uses visualization many times for reveling things and when Genesis talks about water in the creation of the universe there was a time when many unbelievers said that Genesis was wrong because there could be no way that liquid would be present when the universe was so hot, and then what do we find...the perfect liquid. The perfect liquid: quark-gluon plasma. Water no, but in visualization liquid and the liquid most known was water so that is how they described what they were seeing.


Yes, there are. So what? If we somehow found out that our current model of the universe is completely incorrect (as a lot of Christian posters here assert)... if we found out that the universe was not expanding, or even if we found that the "heavens" were really a solid sphere around our planet / solar system... people - people just like you! - would point to exactly these same verses and say "Look here, the Bible says exactly that."

If a verse is vague enough to encompass completely opposing facts... I'd say "no great detail" is the understatement of the decade.[/QUOTE]The word used in the Bible is raqia which even in the Bible does not always refer to something being solid.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't make any assertion at all.

I merely stated that the only reason that I can build tools, is because my body is "fine tuned" to do so. I'll assume that you agree with that.

I have a brain with which I can build a 3d model in my head about what it is that I am going to build. I can use my brain to analyse how I will go about constructing the tool, what materials I need (some of which, I might have to create), how the tool will work, etc.

I have fine motoric skills and opposable tumbs, which are required to actually do the fine work to construct the tool.

Ergo, I am "fine tuned" to make tools.
A cat is not "fine tuned" to make tools.

Therefor, we can conclude that in order to be able to create a certain thing, one has to actually be able to create such a thing. Certain criteria need to be met. You need to be "fine tuned" for the job, in the exact same way that a universe must exist in such a way that it has the potential of bringing forward life before it can do so. It must be "fine tuned". That is your argument, correct?


From all that, it follows that if God created the universe.... he had to be "fine tuned" to even only be able to do so.


Please point out the flaw in that reasoning, if you disagree...

You have actually argued for the point I'm making. For humans, cats, and really all life there had to be a first cause. Life had to begin at some point. Something had to cause life to exist at all. We are not infinite beings and neither are cats, or any other form of life. For us to exist, our existence is dependent on the cause of life and ultimately for us to exist in this universe we are dependent on a very precise recipe which had to be in place when the universe began to exist. So our cause doesn't go back indefinitely but to the beginning of the universe. So too does everything that exists must have had this dependence upon the universe for its cause and existence. Each and everything that exists in our universe has a cause for its existence and nothing that exists exists independently or without a cause. Everything that exists are second causes, if they are not the first cause and a first cause must be the actual first cause. The buck stops there. The first cause must be
an uncaused cause. Nothing can create itself. An uncaused cause would have to be eternal and timeless, never dying, something that had no beginning and could never end.

God didn't need to be "fine tuned" to be the first cause. He is the cause of everything, he moves the chain of causes. He exists as that first cause. HE is eternal and timeless, HE had no beginning and could never die and all knowledge and all power reside within Him.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The flaw is "but god is different because I say so". Duh.

I didn't say so. God said so.

You have actually argued for the point I'm making. For humans, cats, and really all life there had to be a first cause. Life had to begin at some point. Something had to cause life to exist at all. We are not infinite beings and neither are cats, or any other form of life. For us to exist, our existence is dependent on the cause of life and ultimately for us to exist in this universe we are dependent on a very precise recipe which had to be in place when the universe began to exist. So our cause doesn't go back indefinitely but to the beginning of the universe. So too does everything that exists must have had this dependence upon the universe for its cause and existence. Each and everything that exists in our universe has a cause for its existence and nothing that exists exists independently or without a cause. Everything that exists are second causes, if they are not the first cause and a first cause must be the actual first cause. The buck stops there. The first cause must be
an uncaused cause. Nothing can create itself. An uncaused cause would have to be eternal and timeless, never dying, something that had no beginning and could never end.

God didn't need to be "fine tuned" to be the first cause. He is the cause of everything, he moves the chain of causes. He exists as that first cause. HE is eternal and timeless, HE had no beginning and could never die and all knowledge and all power reside within Him.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Each and everything that exists in our universe has a cause for its existence and nothing that exists exists independently or without a cause.

...a cause IN the universe, yes.

However, not sure what this has to do with the point I was making. I didn't speak about any causes. I spoke about how I can only build tools because I am capable of doing so.

Just like the only reason the universe brought forward life is because the universe had the potential of doing so first.

That is what you refer to by "fine tuned".

The only point I'm making, is that your god had to be "fine tuned" in the exact same way, for the exact same reason.

So if that is your argument for the "fine tuning" of the universe, then the same goes for the "fine tuning" of your god.

You may being the special pleading now.

Everything that exists are second causes, if they are not the first cause and a first cause must be the actual first cause. The buck stops there. The first cause must be
an uncaused cause. Nothing can create itself.

First of all, as others have already pointed out to you, nothing in our universe ever is "created" or "begins to exist".

What actually happens is that existing stuff is changed / rearranged into new configurations. Take your own body for example.

Every single atom that makes up your body, existed LONG before "you" did. What "you" are is, in essence, nothing more or less then a specific configuration of matter.
Matter that existed before you did, in another configuration.

An uncaused cause would have to be eternal and timeless, never dying, something that had no beginning and could never end.

1. merely asserting it, doesn't make it true or sensible

2. "never dying"? How did you jump from "uncaused cause" to that cause being some time of thing that could be seen as "alive"?

3. for the gazzilionth time, causality requires the existence of a time dimension. It's a phenomena of physics as it applies in this universe. Removing the universe, would remove all physical phenomena it contains (as well as time itself). So to speak about a "cause" for the universe, exposes a chicken and egg problem.

God didn't need to be "fine tuned" to be the first cause.

I just explained to you why that is incorrect and you completely ignored it. In fact, you just dissmissed it without giving any justification for it at all. Yet another bare assertion on your part.

I'll explain again: in order for your god to be able to create a universe, he must actually meet the requirements needed to be able to do it. Just like I need to meet certain criteria in order to even only be able to make a tool. I require a brain to imagine 3d models, I require reasoning abilities to make a manufacturing plan, I require fine motoric skills to assemble all the parts, etc.

In your language/terminology, that means that I must be "fine tuned" for tool-making.

In exactly the same way, your god must be "fine tuned" for universe-making.

Why is it a valid argument for my body or the universe itself, but not for your god?
Without engaging in special pleading...off course.

He is the cause of everything, he moves the chain of causes. He exists as that first cause. HE is eternal and timeless, HE had no beginning and could never die and all knowledge and all power reside within Him.

... and he has to be fine-tuned for universe making.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't say so. God said so.

And you know this, because the bible says it.
And the bible is correct because god says so in the bible.
And god exists, because the bible says so.
And the bible is correct, because god says so in the bible.
And god doesn't lie, because the bible says he doesn't.
And, as we have seen before, the bible is correct because god says so in the bible.
And, off course, god exists, because the bible says so.
And......

Something like that?

You have actually argued for the point I'm making. For humans, cats, and really all life there had to be a first cause. Life had to begin at some point. Something had to cause life to exist at all. We are not infinite beings and neither are cats, or any other form of life. For us to exist, our existence is dependent on the cause of life and ultimately for us to exist in this universe we are dependent on a very precise recipe which had to be in place when the universe began to exist. So our cause doesn't go back indefinitely but to the beginning of the universe. So too does everything that exists must have had this dependence upon the universe for its cause and existence. Each and everything that exists in our universe has a cause for its existence and nothing that exists exists independently or without a cause. Everything that exists are second causes, if they are not the first cause and a first cause must be the actual first cause. The buck stops there. The first cause must be
an uncaused cause. Nothing can create itself. An uncaused cause would have to be eternal and timeless, never dying, something that had no beginning and could never end.

God didn't need to be "fine tuned" to be the first cause. He is the cause of everything, he moves the chain of causes. He exists as that first cause. HE is eternal and timeless, HE had no beginning and could never die and all knowledge and all power reside within Him.

The only point being made here, is that you use special pleading to weasel out of every hard corner, coupled with evasion of points and completely ignoring objections to what "causality" means in the absence of a time dimension.

It has been explained to you, ad nauseum, why it is nonsensical to talk about a "cause" for the universe.... Since it would require something to happen BEFORE the universe. But the word "before" only makes sense in a temporal context. Removing the universe, removes the temporal context.

To talk about a cause "prior to the universe", is like talking about a house "north of the north pole".

 

[Freodin]

Which is important because God uses visualization many times for reveling things and when Genesis talks about water in the creation of the universe there was a time when many unbelievers said that Genesis was wrong because there could be no way that liquid would be present when the universe was so hot, and then what do we find...the perfect liquid. The perfect liquid: quark-gluon plasma. Water no, but in visualization liquid and the liquid most known was water so that is how they described what they were seeing.

So... when the Bible explicity says X, it doesn't mean it, but instead "Y, which is something that we from our current position of understanding assume to be right and thus what the Bible means, because the Bible is always correct."

That, my dear, is "hindsight".

The word used in the Bible is raqia which even in the Bible does not always refer to something being solid.

Yepp. And it was that raqia that devided the quark-gluon plasma from above it from the... other liquid below it.

I am looking forward to seeing what you will attribute to these terms to make that "correct".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Apparently timelike spacetime intervals govern causation - that is, any event necessary to cause a phenomenon will occur at a time that all observers agree is before the phenomenon.

Also, not all events have efficient causes. Some events appear to be purely stochastic and are not deterministically preceded by triggering events.

Such as?

 

[AdamSK]

Such as?

Radioactive decay.

 

[AdamSK]

I don't see how you can have one without the other.

If I can explain a specific phenomena, then I CAN use that explanation to predict things concerning that phenomena. That's literally what "explanation" is all about.

Not necessarily. It is possible for entities to be identifiable but not predictable.

You mean, "non-demonstrable entities", I assume.

No, I mean demonstrable but not predictable.
Easy example - you receive an unmarked letter in the mail every week. It always describes some specific, verifiable event that will happen during the week, and the described event happens without fail. You later determine that the letter is never placed in your mailbox - it simply appears there.
That's a describable and testable phenomenon, but it's not predictable. We have no idea what the letter will say each week, but over time we can test empirically that the predictions always come to pass.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not really.

I seem to remember that in the quantum world, that "rule" doesn't really apply as you would expect it to...

But even if we would forget that for a second and accept that "everything has a cause"... That phenomena, causality, is a phenomena that applies IN the universe.
It is subject to a temporal dimension. No time = no causality.

Causes happen before effects. There is no before t = 0.

What we observe is that there was nothing and then there was the universe which included time. We observe that nothing of the universe pops out of nothing. Whales don't just pop up in front of us from nothing. Even Krauss who is trying to say that something can come from nothing is not claiming nothing is nothing or not anything. In fact, all scientists that are proposing ways in which the universe could come from nothing are using something to cause that to happen. It may not be they say causality as we know it, but they are claiming that something had to cause the universe to exist.

 

[AdamSK]

What we observe is that there was nothing and then there was the universe which included time.

No. What we observe is that there was the universe which included time. We have not observed that there was nothing before it. Some physicists are working on establishing that there was nothing before it; others are working on other hypotheses. It is not established, and it is not part of the Big Bang model.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Radioactive decay.

Its cause is from unstable atomic nuclei.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. What we observe is that there was the universe which included time. We have not observed that there was nothing before it. Some physicists are working on establishing that there was nothing before it; others are working on other hypotheses. It is not established, and it is not part of the Big Bang model.

That is not true. Did you read the link where Vilenkin says he has evidence that the universe came from nothing...absolutely nothing.

 

[AdamSK]

Its cause is from unstable atomic nuclei.

That's the condition, not the cause.
You can have two identical atoms under identical conditions, and one decays while the other doesn't. The decay event has no efficient cause - no cause which can be identified as necessarily causing the event. The event occurs stochastically - it does or it doesn't over a given time interval with no way to determine ahead of time whether it will or not.

 

[AdamSK]

That is not true. Did you read the link where Vilenkin says he has evidence that the universe came from nothing...absolutely nothing.

Yes, that's his claim. It is not generally accepted by physicists as being true. It is the hypothesis he is working on.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So... when the Bible explicity says X, it doesn't mean it, but instead "Y, which is something that we from our current position of understanding assume to be right and thus what the Bible means, because the Bible is always correct."

That, my dear, is "hindsight".



Yepp. And it was that raqia that devided the quark-gluon plasma from above it from the... other liquid below it.

I am looking forward to seeing what you will attribute to these terms to make that "correct".

Everything is hindsight. Almost everything we know about science is discovery by hindsight. The Bible is not a science book and does not go into great detail about creation nor scientific material but it gives us insight and just like how we understand some disconnected fact but not how it comes together with other fact in nature, so do we in the Bible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the condition, not the cause.
You can have two identical atoms under identical conditions, and one decays while the other doesn't. The decay event has no efficient cause - no cause which can be identified as necessarily causing the event. The event occurs stochastically - it does or it doesn't over a given time interval with no way to determine ahead of time whether it will or not.

True, but that is more a science of the gaps example than uncaused cause.