Fine tuning argument

[EmmVeePee]

The universe is finely tuned, that is, to support life, and to support existence. Dimensionless physical constants are so precise, if varied by a fraction of a percent, existence would not exist. For example, if the gravitation constant was larger, electromagnetism would run amok. Or if the strong force was 1% stronger, fusion would occur in Hydrogen to produce He-2 rather than He-4. If weak force was stronger, neutrons would be at a premium, and larger atoms would not be able to form. These statistical anomalies occur for nearly every dimensionless constant. The result of which gives the probability of the universe existing the way it does to 1/1x10^10^23. That’s 1 times 10, to the tenth, to the 23rd – yes, a power to a power. It can be concluded that there is something amiss here, that the universe had some sort of selection force behind it; theistically, God. There are ways around this magnificent statistic that involves multiverses (opposed to universe). Such as, if there are infinite universes, then the odds of 1 of them existing as ours does is 100%. The evidence for multiple universes is very limited to hypothesis which includes phenomena in Physics which are barely understood (virtual particles). However now a Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS) theory is being developed, which has some weight, but again uses the multiverse hypothesis. This states that a universe in a multiverse system corrects itself to flow into these constants or otherwise faces cosmological death. God, in my belief, can not be proven mathematically. He however is continuing to make it harder and harder for people to find excuses.

 

[us38]

A certain sentient puddle comes to mind.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[The Nihilist]

The universe is finely tuned, that is, to support life, and to support existence. Dimensionless physical constants are so precise, if varied by a fraction of a percent, existence would not exist. For example, if the gravitation constant was larger, electromagnetism would run amok. Or if the strong force was 1% stronger, fusion would occur in Hydrogen to produce He-2 rather than He-4. If weak force was stronger, neutrons would be at a premium, and larger atoms would not be able to form. These statistical anomalies occur for nearly every dimensionless constant. The result of which gives the probability of the universe existing the way it does to 1/1x10^10^23. That’s 1 times 10, to the tenth, to the 23rd – yes, a power to a power. It can be concluded that there is something amiss here, that the universe had some sort of selection force behind it; theistically, God. There are ways around this magnificent statistic that involves multiverses (opposed to universe). Such as, if there are infinite universes, then the odds of 1 of them existing as ours does is 100%. The evidence for multiple universes is very limited to hypothesis which includes phenomena in Physics which are barely understood (virtual particles). However now a Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS) theory is being developed, which has some weight, but again uses the multiverse hypothesis. This states that a universe in a multiverse system corrects itself to flow into these constants or otherwise faces cosmological death. God, in my belief, can not be proven mathematically. He however is continuing to make it harder and harder for people to find excuses.

As if evidence for God were any more hypothetical then the existence of multiple universes. Spare us your dogmatism.
You are like a man who pours out a bucket of sand. Seeing how the sand has fallen, and thinking of how many grains of sand are involves, he understands that the odds of this precise arrangement are one in a hundred billion. It could only be God! he declares.

 

[EmmVeePee]

As if evidence for God were any more hypothetical then the existence of multiple universes. Spare us your dogmatism.
You are like a man who pours out a bucket of sand. Seeing how the sand has fallen, and thinking of how many grains of sand are involves, he understands that the odds of this precise arrangement are one in a hundred billion. It could only be God! he declares.

Uhh, no, actually if you read the post, and perhaps had a basic sense of Physics, the universe would be a giant black hole, and the chance that it didn't is 1/1EE23. Do you know what can escape a black hole? Not even light.

This isn't a "looking back on how the sand fell" and determining the chance of each grain falling the way it has - either way, you still have a pile of sand.

The statistic is about existence - there is that small odd that we existed. Not existence the way we know it. It'd be more like pouring out a bucket of dyed sand and getting 3 Mono-Lisa in a perfect equidistance from each other.

The idea of a multiverse already takes the idea of atheism as a truth in order to find a hypothetical solution to empirical data.

If I won the Powerball 9 times in a row with the same numbers each time, would you expect that it was a statistical fluke, or that it was rigged? If the latter; seek help. Why can't you believe the universe was rigged?

Question your belief, for just a moment. I was an atheist a year ago, I let go for split second, and I saw the Truth.

 

[LibraryOwl]

Alright, now, what does wether the facts demand a God or don't demand a God have to do with our religion, Emmvee? Even if you prooved that there was some supernatural force out there, you've prooved nothing about who or what that supernatural force is. As far as im concerned, silly scientific questions about how the universe was created or how ol the earth is are about as important as sandcastles. Honestly, im not even sure if I care where the universe came from.

 

[us38]

Uhh, no, actually if you read the post, and perhaps had a basic sense of Physics, the universe would be a giant black hole, and the chance that it didn't is 1/1EE23.

Link or math to back that number up?

Not to mention that this assumes that the constants of the universe could be different. Quite an unfounded assumption, at that.

This isn't a "looking back on how the sand fell" and determining the chance of each grain falling the way it has - either way, you still have a pile of sand.

Yes, but the chances of that particular pile of sand occuring, with each individual grain in it's exact place.

The statistic is about existence - there is that small odd that we existed. Not existence the way we know it.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find my self in - an interesting hole I find my self in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears caches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

R.I.P Douglas Adams.
​

The idea of a multiverse already takes the idea of atheism as a truth in order to find a hypothetical solution to empirical data.

No, it doesn't. The existance of the multiverse would not rule out the existance of god. In fact, nothing could. Science does not mention god, not because science is atheististic, but because god has no place in science.

If I won the Powerball 9 times in a row with the same numbers each time, would you expect that it was a statistical fluke, or that it was rigged?

The most logical belief would be that of rigging. You are not, however, trying to prove that rigging is the most logical belief; you are trying to prove rigging happened. And, as I said earlier, that assumes that things could be different.

Astronomically low odds =/= impossibility.

Question your belief, for just a moment. I was an atheist a year ago, I let go for split second, and I saw the Truth.

Funny, but that's exactly how I stopped being a christian.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[EmmVeePee]

Link or math to back that number up?

Not to mention that this assumes that the constants of the universe could be different. Quite an unfounded assumption, at that.

Yes, but the chances of that particular pile of sand occuring, with each individual grain in it's exact place.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find my self in - an interesting hole I find my self in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears caches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

R.I.P Douglas Adams.
​

No, it doesn't. The existance of the multiverse would not rule out the existance of god. In fact, nothing could. Science does not mention god, not because science is atheististic, but because god has no place in science.

The most logical belief would be that of rigging. You are not, however, trying to prove that rigging is the most logical belief; you are trying to prove rigging happened. And, as I said earlier, that assumes that things could be different.

Astronomically low odds =/= impossibility.

Funny, but that's exactly how I stopped being a christian.

Verwirrung

-- D

I have no link to that number but its not disputed among physicists.

The constants are able to exist differently. This requires mathematical proof that I frankly don't understand, however, this is not being debated either.

The universe has existed for 13.7 billion years... doesn't get much more stable than that. In fact, since the beginning of the universe is the beginning of time... it doesn't get any more stable than that.

Theoretical Physics works more with hypothesis rather than actual science. Science is the study of the natural, I agree.

Philosophy is based on logic. Everything has costs. The philosophical debates on God lead to "I believe the logical answer is this" or "... that" There is no, and will never be, a philosophical proof of God, but rather preponderance of evidence.

 

[us38]

I have no link to that number but its not disputed among physicists.

Do you have a link proving that physicists don't dispute it?

The constants are able to exist differently. This requires mathematical proof that I frankly don't understand, however, this is not being debated either.

Again, a link to something showing that?

Philosophy is based on logic. Everything has costs. The philosophical debates on God lead to "I believe the logical answer is this" or "... that" There is no, and will never be, a philosophical proof of God, but rather preponderance of evidence.

And you thus far have presented no evidence other than "We are lucky to be here", which the puddle analogy soundly defeats.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[Lucretius]

As an aspiring theoretical physicist and an avid amateur cosmologist, I don't really have any quibbling points over the constants mentioned. However, virtual particles aren't supposedly evidence for a multiverse. The whole notion of a multiverse is strictly in the hypothesis realm; there is no real evidence verifying it.

That being said, I've also taken a few college philosophy courses and can recognize a poor argument when I see one. It's your classical argument ad ignoratium. You can't understand how these constants could exist in such a way that was suitable for life, therefore you declare some outside force to have done it.

While this is a flaw, you need to recognize the simple fact: calculating probabilities AFTER the fact may result in pretty numbers, but the fact is you CANT use this as a reason for saying "the odds of this thing occuring are so low that it couldn't have done so." By analogy, roll a die at random 100 times. Calculate the odds of getting that exact roll afterwards. By your logic, the number will be so low that we could not have gotten the rolls we did. The more we roll, the lower the number will be. But we got the numbers! We still got the roll. You can't (post-occurence) place a probability on something, and then declare it impossible based on a low probability. Things that have already happened can't just be said to be impossible due to low probability. Low probability things happen all the time...

So, take these, perhaps you can adjust your argument.

 

[Upisoft]

Or if the strong force was 1% stronger, fusion would occur in Hydrogen to produce He-2 rather than He-4.

When was the last time you did fusion experiment in environment with 1% stronger strong nuclear force? Let me guess. You never did such experiment, because such environment does not exist in our Universe. So, all you have is your imaginary universe. Can you back up your claims with some real evidence?

 

[LibraryOwl]

It still seems like we havn't gotten anywhere with philosophy. This is all some pretty boring science. There is an evoloution vs. creation forum, you know?

"I troll no more." Owl said as he walked out of the room, taking the door with him.

ahh,,,,

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Metaphysics, and primarily the composition of being in existence does not matter. These threads about the formation of the universe is like me being thrown among a sowing circle of astrologists and metaphysicians in which nothing gets accomplished.

 

[Asimov]

The universe is finely tuned, that is, to support life, and to support existence. Dimensionless physical constants are so precise, if varied by a fraction of a percent, existence would not exist. For example, if the gravitation constant was larger, electromagnetism would run amok. Or if the strong force was 1% stronger, fusion would occur in Hydrogen to produce He-2 rather than He-4. If weak force was stronger, neutrons would be at a premium, and larger atoms would not be able to form. These statistical anomalies occur for nearly every dimensionless constant. The result of which gives the probability of the universe existing the way it does to 1/1x10^10^23. That’s 1 times 10, to the tenth, to the 23rd – yes, a power to a power. It can be concluded that there is something amiss here, that the universe had some sort of selection force behind it; theistically, God. There are ways around this magnificent statistic that involves multiverses (opposed to universe). Such as, if there are infinite universes, then the odds of 1 of them existing as ours does is 100%. The evidence for multiple universes is very limited to hypothesis which includes phenomena in Physics which are barely understood (virtual particles). However now a Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS) theory is being developed, which has some weight, but again uses the multiverse hypothesis. This states that a universe in a multiverse system corrects itself to flow into these constants or otherwise faces cosmological death. God, in my belief, can not be proven mathematically. He however is continuing to make it harder and harder for people to find excuses.

How else can we put the cart before the horse? Let's find out.

 

[bluemarkus]

god is beyond description.
read the end of the book of job !

 

[Upisoft]

god is beyond description.
read the end of the book of job !

Which book of job?
Ah, you mean that book where God was described -- the Bible?

 

[thedream233]

As if evidence for God were any more hypothetical then the existence of multiple universes. Spare us your dogmatism.
You are like a man who pours out a bucket of sand. Seeing how the sand has fallen, and thinking of how many grains of sand are involves, he understands that the odds of this precise arrangement are one in a hundred billion. It could only be God! he declares.

meh.

Not really a good analogy for disproving God. I believe that the one who pured the sand out would be God.

 

[smog]

This is one of the few topics where I feel everybody's wrong. The fine-tuning argument is wrong because it implicitly makes unreasonable assumptions, but the counters to the fine-tuning argument are completely missing the point and are attacking perfectly valid arguments in the process (just to clear things up, I'm not talking about arguments that dispute the 10^-10^23 figure - that is not my field of expertise)

I'm going to have to show some probability basics:

P(X) = a priori probability of X: if you close your eyes and ignore all evidence, how probable is X?
P(X|Y) = conditional probability of X, given Y: if you look at evidence Y, how probable is X?
~X = not X

Bayes' law:

P(Y|X) = P(X|Y) P(Y) / P(X)

So here are the premises of the fine tuning argument:
a. P(Life|God) = 1: if God exists, then life is the result.
b. P(Life|~God) = 10^-10^23: if God does not exist, then life occurs with probability 10^-10^23.

Here is the conclusion the argument aims to prove:
c. P(God|Life) >> P(~God|Life): given the evidence of life, it is much more probable that God exists that he does not.

The problem: the data we are explicitly given is insufficient to calculate P(God|Life). Using Bayes' law we have that:

P(God|Life) = P(Life|God) * P(God) / P(Life) = 1 * P(God) / P(Life)
P(~God|Life) = P(Life|~God) * P(~God) / P(Life) = 10^-10^23 * (1 - P(God)) / P(Life)

So we want to show that:

P(God) >> 10^-10^23 - 10^-10^23*P(God)
P(God) >> 10^-10^23 / (1 - 10^-10^23) = (approx.) 10^-10^23

Therefore, in order for the fine tuning argument to be valid, we have to show something awfully specific: namely, that the a priori probability God exists (and remember, a priori means we are not given any evidence at all - it is a blindfold probability!) is much greater than 10^-10^23.

This is important, so I have to repeat it: the necessary and sufficient condition for the fine tuning argument to be valid is for P(God) to be greater than 10^-10^23. That is cold, hard, definitive fact. It comes directly from theorems from probability theory. Period. And if you think P(God) doesn't make sense, because as I said, it's an evidenceless probability, then tough luck - the argument cannot be valid without it and the debate is over.

Now how do you evaluate P(God)? What's its value? Obviously, you must think it's a pretty good probability - I suppose that religious people in general think the same. I even suspect that most atheists have a similar intuition (and that is why they elude the question). Eh, I'm afraid you're wrong. The usual way we evaluate a priori probabilities of this kind is that simpler solutions have greater probability. God is complex. Awfully complex. A good measure of complexity is information content. If we suppose that, for example, God uses a yottabyte of information, its a priori would already be as low as 10^-10^24 (if my calculations are right). Now, if you take a simple program that tries an universe, looks if it could lead to life, then tries again until it succeeds, it would easily fit in a megabyte, and its a priori would be 10^-10^6, which is significantly more likely than both dumb luck AND God.

You may disagree with how I get my numbers (I assure you that I'm not pulling them out of a hat - there are good reasons behind them), but now, at least, you know exactly what there is to argue. The intuition behind the reasoning has merit, but the argument is based on a fishy premise, the implicit assumption that God's absolute probability is greater than 10^-10^23 and furthermore that there are no simpler processes that have higher probability.

PS: you said: "1/1x10^10^23. That’s 1 times 10, to the tenth, to the 23rd", but the former is 10^10^23 whereas what you said in words is (10^10)^23 = 10^230, which is much, much, much, much smaller (thus bigger in probability) - so much in fact that there is no way you will ever convince me that God is more probable than that. So which one is it?

 

[traversinginfinity]

Uhh, no, actually if you read the post, and perhaps had a basic sense of Physics, the universe would be a giant black hole, and the chance that it didn't is 1/1EE23. Do you know what can escape a black hole? Not even light.

This isn't a "looking back on how the sand fell" and determining the chance of each grain falling the way it has - either way, you still have a pile of sand.

The statistic is about existence - there is that small odd that we existed. Not existence the way we know it. It'd be more like pouring out a bucket of dyed sand and getting 3 Mono-Lisa in a perfect equidistance from each other.

The idea of a multiverse already takes the idea of atheism as a truth in order to find a hypothetical solution to empirical data.

If I won the Powerball 9 times in a row with the same numbers each time, would you expect that it was a statistical fluke, or that it was rigged? If the latter; seek help. Why can't you believe the universe was rigged?

Question your belief, for just a moment. I was an atheist a year ago, I let go for split second, and I saw the Truth.

Claiming that it is reasonable to believe our universe is designed is understandable. But your "reasoning" stops there. There is no way for you to reasonably or logically believe that the same "force" or "power" or "God" that designed the universe is the same being as the Christian God of the Bible. That force, power, or God could be the God of Islam. Or the God of Gnosticism. Or Vishnu. Or some God that hasn't been invented yet by human religions and mythology.

Even if you do convince an atheist that it is reasonable to believe that our universe is "fine-tuned", you are still no closer to proving Christianity, if that's what you're even trying to do.

The only reason I say this is because you said "I saw the truth", as if this fine-tuning argument somehow proved the truth of Christianity. Anyone could use the same argument to try to "prove" the existence of their god.

 

[jeff992]

Claiming that it is reasonable to believe our universe is designed is understandable. But your "reasoning" stops there. There is no way for you to reasonably or logically believe that the same "force" or "power" or "God" that designed the universe is the same being as the Christian God of the Bible. That force, power, or God could be the God of Islam. Or the God of Gnosticism. Or Vishnu. Or some God that hasn't been invented yet by human religions and mythology.

Even if you do convince an atheist that it is reasonable to believe that our universe is "fine-tuned", you are still no closer to proving Christianity, if that's what you're even trying to do.

The only reason I say this is because you said "I saw the truth", as if this fine-tuning argument somehow proved the truth of Christianity. Anyone could use the same argument to try to "prove" the existence of their god.

i'm sure he did not just use the fine-tuing argument in "proving christianity" (proving anything in this dicussion is impossible) but most likely reasoned, as you did as a deist, that a "god" exists and then asked which god exists and further went on to the question of whether Christ rose from the dead (we won't discuss this in this thread, but the evidence is very good) and other things and then decided.