Fine Tuning

[Nihilist Virus]

This thread is going to be about honesty, specifically intellectual honesty. Please only post here if you're genuinely interested in pursuing the truth with no interest in the outcome favoring your current beliefs.

I've only seen two, perhaps three, of my arguments truly fail on these forums, but all of them were attacks on God or the Bible and not defenses of atheism and so at this point my worldview has gone completely unchallenged. I'm not very satisfied with that, so I want to address fine tuning because I think that is perhaps the one thing that lends the strongest case to theism.

Now, I think that the fine tuning argument can be shot down immediately because it is an argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy. But in the interest of pursuing truth I'm dropping the formalities so that you all can present the best informal case for fine tuning. But that doesn't mean you can simply tell me to look at the stars and somehow know there has to be a God. Please... not that informal.

The case for and against fine tuning would be the following bullet points:

1.) Formally, the argument is a fallacy as mentioned above.

1.) [I can think of no rebuttal to this.]

2.) We only fine tune things (cars, etc) because of uncompromising, external constraints; God has no uncompromising, external constraints that he must satisfy, so on a theistic worldview we do not expect to see a finely tuned universe.

2.) Regardless of expectation, a finely tuned universe implies the existence of an intelligence beyond our universe. [However, the point in question still must be demonstrated.]

3.) There is no evidence that the physical constants of our universe could have been anything other than what they are, so fine tuning has no case.

3.) We can mathematically model universes with different constants, and they generally are unstable or unsuitable for life. [Is this factually correct? Does anyone have sources?]

4.) Many constants are certainly not finely tuned, such as the speed of light.

4.) Certain physical constants must be accurate to within 1 part in 10^(many) for life to be possible. [Is there a source for this? How can we be sure we're characterizing all possible forms of life?]

5.) Calculations concluding that the universe is finely tuned are fallacious because the physical constants were initially defined in the Big Bang. The Big Bang occurred on a scale so small that quantum mechanics must be considered; the Big Bang involved so much mass (all mass in the universe) that effects of relativity must be considered. As of yet we lack the physical language to unite quantum mechanics with relativity, so we lack the ability to describe the Big Bang and that is why we return absurd calculations which imply fine tuning.

5.) [I can think of no rebuttal to this.]

Point 5.) is the reason I've rejected fine tuning up to this point. This makes the matter inconclusive, so either apologists are aware of this and yet are arguing on behalf of fine tuning nonetheless, or else apologists are certain of their position because of some other argument that I've not yet seen.

 

[Chesterton]

 

[Eudaimonist]

If there is an argument there, I fail to see what it is. Perhaps you can explain that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

If there is an argument there, I fail to see what it is. Perhaps you can explain that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's the rebuttal he asked for.

ETA: You posted 5 minutes after me. Did you even watch it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's the rebuttal he asked for.

ETA: You posted 5 minutes after me. Did you even watch it?

Oh, I thought that it was just a static image. I didn't realize that it was a video.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's the rebuttal he asked for.

ETA: You posted 5 minutes after me. Did you even watch it?

That is nothing like what I asked for. The video merely asserts that the laws of nature are finely tuned. It's not telling me the degree to which, say, c is finely tuned. Did you not read the bracketed section of the 2nd blue point in the OP? Also I fail to see how this addresses the 5th red point in the OP. Edit - I edited the color scheme of the bullet points for clarity.

A refutation must be an argument. An assertion is not an argument. The video is an assertion. Therefore the video is not an argument. Therefore the video is not a refutation. Therefore the video is not a refutation of anything.

I understand that the video declares itself to be the summary of a previous video. Does the previous video relay actual facts or does it just continue to assert that the laws of physics are finely tuned?

 

[Chesterton]

That is nothing like what I asked for. The video merely asserts that the laws of nature are finely tuned. It's not telling me the degree to which, say, c is finely tuned. Did you not read the bracketed section of the 2nd blue point in the OP? Also I fail to see how this addresses the 5th red point in the OP. Edit - I edited the color scheme of the bullet points for clarity.

A refutation must be an argument. An assertion is not an argument. The video is an assertion. Therefore the video is not an argument. Therefore the video is not a refutation. Therefore the video is not a refutation of anything.

I understand that the video declares itself to be the summary of a previous video. Does the previous video relay actual facts or does it just continue to assert that the laws of physics are finely tuned?

Yes the video recognizes fine tuning, as do people in the video like atheist Dawkins and atheist Astronomer Royal Martin Rees. Everyone accepts it. If you deny it I'm not going to argue it with you; it'd be like arguing with a flat-earther.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes the video recognizes fine tuning, as do people in the video like atheist Dawkins and atheist Astronomer Royal Martin Rees. Everyone accepts it. If you deny it I'm not going to argue it with you; it'd be like arguing with a flat-earther.

Show me where I denied it. I denied that the video demonstrates it. I'm simply asking for the facts. I think you need to re-read everything I said on this thread. Before you throw my smart-alec responses back at me, make sure you're following what's being said. A smart alec who can't follow the conversation only embarrasses himself.

Also I was unaware that the universe being finely tuned is a point no longer in question. Dr. Lawrence Krauss seems to think he's thoroughly destroyed the fine tuning argument, so for you to say that the issue is settled is unsettling to a great degree.

Saying that the issue is completely resolved without offering one corroborating fact is a grievous abuse of my suspension of formal logic for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[StTruth]

Hi Nihilist Virus,

This is an interesting thread. I remember reading something (I think it's by Krauss but I can't be sure) which shows why fine-tuning is a poor argument for God. I can't remember all the points now but one of them has something to do with the fact that there could have been an infinite number of misses and nothing happened and then finally one singularity takes place with all the right conditions and aeons later we evolve into what we are and we sit back and say there must be a God because of fine-tuning.

The other point has something to do with the misses may not be all that bleak. The misses may not produce particles as we know it today but there's no telling what they might produce. They might very well produce realities that we can't possibly have any notion of because it didn't happen in our current universe. And if we had existed in this alternative reality, we'd sit back and talk about fine-tuning and imagine that only those particular conditions that produced our alternative reality were the "fine" conditions that could support existence.

I'm not sure if I've expressed myself properly but basically, that convinced me that fine-tuning isn't such a good argument for us Christians after all.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi Nihilist Virus,

This is an interesting thread. I remember reading something (I think it's by Krauss but I can't be sure) which shows why fine-tuning is a poor argument for God. I can't remember all the points now but one of them has something to do with the fact that there could have been an infinite number of misses and nothing happened and then finally one singularity takes place with all the right conditions and aeons later we evolve into what we are and we sit back and say there must be a God because of fine-tuning.

This is the thing that the theists are disputing. They reject the proposal of infinitely many universes because there is no evidence to corroborate their existence (and then they propose their God for which there is no evidence, which I find to be a puzzling application of the methodology they're trying to establish).

Now, which is more likely to exist for no reason and with no cause - infinitely many random universes founded on mathematical principles or an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity who has properties that are incomprehensible?

But even if we all agree to dismiss the multiverse and assume that our universe is the sum total of reality, we're still left with the problem that the theists have to prove that the laws of nature actually are finely tuned. I've been asking about that for quite a while now and no one has lifted a finger to show that a single constant is finely tuned. If we have one universe that is not finely tuned, then the proposal of God as a necessity becomes quite a weak proposition. I have already shown that God could not have caused the universe to exist (I'll show it again upon request), but I concede that if the universe is finely tuned then the existence of a deity warrants consideration. I'm just surprised that no one has offered anything whatsoever up to this point. There has only been the one video asserting that the universe is finely tuned, providing zero examples.

The other point has something to do with the misses may not be all that bleak. The misses may not produce particles as we know it today but there's no telling what they might produce. They might very well produce realities that we can't possibly have any notion of because it didn't happen in our current universe. And if we had existed in this alternative reality, we'd sit back and talk about fine-tuning and imagine that only those particular conditions that produced our alternative reality were the "fine" conditions that could support existence.

I'm not sure if I've expressed myself properly but basically, that convinced me that fine-tuning isn't such a good argument for us Christians after all.

Cheers,

StTruth

Atoms and the various other particles that we know of interact in accordance with the four major forces. But WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) interact mainly via gravity (hence the "massive" part) and exhibit little to no interaction via the other three major forces. In other words, it's dark matter, and dark matter makes up around 25% of the universe that we know of. The remaining 75% that we know of is dark energy. Atoms, neutrinos, photons, and all particles we know of account for less than 1% of all mass and energy in the universe. So it's nowhere near out of the question that there could be another kind of particle like a WIMP that also does not interact with us gravitationally. This type of particle would be completely undetectable. And there could be another kind of particle that is undetectable to that new type of particle, and etc ad infinitum. We hardly even need parallel universes because there could be infinitely many undetectable civilizations in our own universe along with "more" particles that are interactively isolated which produce no life at all. It could be the case that there are infinitely many undetectable civilizations made of particle X, and that for every such civilization there are 10^100,000,000 different particles (all isolated from one another) which cannot configure to form living creatures.

And so which is more likely to exist for no reason and with no cause: randomness and meaninglessness in abundance, or God?

 

[civilwarbuff]

This is the thing that the theists are disputing. They reject the proposal of infinitely many universes because there is no evidence to corroborate their existence

Same reason you deny God......

Now, which is more likely to exist for no reason and with no cause - infinitely many random universes founded on mathematical principles

Which mathematical "principles" are those? Those that just produce a theory with absolutely no evidence? I can say 1+1=5 but if I can't prove it what do I have?

In other words, it's dark matter, and dark matter makes up around 25% of the universe that we know of. The remaining 75% that we know of is dark energy.

And you can provide direct, observable and unfalsifiable evidence of this claim, correct? I mean, we are talking science here, right? Not proving some hocus pocus god?

Atoms, neutrinos, photons, and all particles we know of account for less than 1% of all mass and energy in the universe. So it's nowhere near out of the question that there could be another kind of particle like a WIMP that also does not interact with us gravitationally. This type of particle would be completely undetectable. And there could be another kind of particle that is undetectable to that new type of particle, and etc ad infinitum. We hardly even need parallel universes because there could be infinitely many undetectable civilizations in our own universe along with "more" particles that are interactively isolated which produce no life at all. It could be the case that there are infinitely many undetectable civilizations made of particle X, and that for every such civilization there are 10^100,000,000 different particles (all isolated from one another) which cannot configure to form living creatures.

And of course, again, you have evidence of this.....I mean besides because you want it to be so?

 

[StTruth]

This is the thing that the theists are disputing. They reject the proposal of infinitely many universes because there is no evidence to corroborate their existence (and then they propose their God for which there is no evidence, which I find to be a puzzling application of the methodology they're trying to establish).

Now, which is more likely to exist for no reason and with no cause - infinitely many random universes founded on mathematical principles or an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity who has properties that are incomprehensible?

But even if we all agree to dismiss the multiverse and assume that our universe is the sum total of reality, we're still left with the problem that the theists have to prove that the laws of nature actually are finely tuned. I've been asking about that for quite a while now and no one has lifted a finger to show that a single constant is finely tuned. If we have one universe that is not finely tuned, then the proposal of God as a necessity becomes quite a weak proposition. I have already shown that God could not have caused the universe to exist (I'll show it again upon request), but I concede that if the universe is finely tuned then the existence of a deity warrants consideration. I'm just surprised that no one has offered anything whatsoever up to this point. There has only been the one video asserting that the universe is finely tuned, providing zero examples.



Atoms and the various other particles that we know of interact in accordance with the four major forces. But WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) interact mainly via gravity (hence the "massive" part) and exhibit little to no interaction via the other three major forces. In other words, it's dark matter, and dark matter makes up around 25% of the universe that we know of. The remaining 75% that we know of is dark energy. Atoms, neutrinos, photons, and all particles we know of account for less than 1% of all mass and energy in the universe. So it's nowhere near out of the question that there could be another kind of particle like a WIMP that also does not interact with us gravitationally. This type of particle would be completely undetectable. And there could be another kind of particle that is undetectable to that new type of particle, and etc ad infinitum. We hardly even need parallel universes because there could be infinitely many undetectable civilizations in our own universe along with "more" particles that are interactively isolated which produce no life at all. It could be the case that there are infinitely many undetectable civilizations made of particle X, and that for every such civilization there are 10^100,000,000 different particles (all isolated from one another) which cannot configure to form living creatures.

And so which is more likely to exist for no reason and with no cause: randomness and meaninglessness in abundance, or God?



He's just angry about the time I made a fool of him. But really, no one can make a fool of you. Only you can make a fool of yourself. Perhaps he's just mad at himself and he takes it out on atheists. I think he's due for a free phone or something because he's the 100,000,000th Christian to do that.

But um, yeah, I'm taking your advice on the ignoring part. I'm kind of sick to my stomach from looking at that morbid signature anyway.

Thanks for the explanation. I see what you mean. I understand what you mean. The multiverse is mathematically plausible but to postulate an infinitely developed God existing for all eternity does appear fanciful but that's the whole point about faith. It can't be treated this way. It's based on belief and not reasoning.

The idea of God is to be believed or not believed. It can't be subject to the rigours of such careful reasoning.

 

[Lulav]

​

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON


I did a fairly significant clean up, especially considering that it was only two pages long.

If you cannot stay on topic (which includes flames) then you need not post here.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[StTruth]

Haha. It's so funny that you talked through your admin hat. What does that mean?

 

[civilwarbuff]

It means he is speaking with the authority of an admin and not just a private poster.....

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@PapaZoom advanced the conversation with the following video:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning

The first video posted on this thread offered nothing but the assertion that the universe is finely tuned. Here we see the claim that if certain physical constants are changed by one part in 10^(many) then the universe will not permit life.

However, I can only assume that these calculations are derived from computer simulations. And how do we simulate lifetimes of universes? By defining the laws of physics as we know them for the computer. But there's this point from the OP:

Calculations concluding that the universe is finely tuned are fallacious because the physical constants were initially defined in the Big Bang. The Big Bang occurred on a scale so small that quantum mechanics must be considered; the Big Bang involved so much mass (all mass in the universe) that effects of relativity must be considered. As of yet we lack the physical language to unite quantum mechanics with relativity, so we lack the ability to describe the Big Bang and that is why we return absurd calculations which imply fine tuning.

Have we discovered the unifying theory so that we can describe quantum mechanics and relativity at once? No. Do simulations for the lifetime of various universes rely heavily on both quantum mechanics and relativity? Yes. Does it then follow that the calculations are valid? No!

Also, there was the portion in the video where they examine the three possible explanations of fine tuning: physical necessity, chance, and design. Except they didn't examine these three; they examined only the first two. The problem, obviously, is that the issues regarding the intimate nature and origin of the universe are things which have plagued mankind for all time. All three explanations have massive holes, so to examine only the first two, describe the problems, and then offer the last possibility without putting it through the fire (which happens to be the possibility they're pitching) is nothing short of invalid. God could not have caused the universe to exist (I'll happily prove that in excruciating detail below), but perhaps he could have altered the physical constants to his satisfaction. But hey, there's no evidence that this occurred, and I'm sure we can agree to rule out chance, so we conclude that the constants exist as they are as a result of physical necessity. This is literally the same reasoning that they employed in the video.

How does the prime mover/Kalam Cosmological argument fail?

Debunking #1

The argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

Now, it may well be true that God used some other means besides causality to create the universe, or he might have simply violated logic and caused the t=0 event to occur. In either case, we cannot reach these conclusions logically starting from premises that make sense. Hence, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.

Debunking #2

Similar to how electrons can be characterized as waves or particles, causality can be described as above or else as done by Aristotle. Aristotle proposed four causes, and we need only examine two: efficient cause and material cause. An efficient cause is the entity that is performing the causal action, and the material cause is the thing that is acted upon. Consider a sculptor creating a statue: the sculptor (or his chisel) is the efficient cause and the marble block is the material cause. All forms of causality that we know of are characterized in this manner.

If God created the universe ex nihilo, then there was no material cause. This is not how causality works. Think about it: what did God act on when he created the universe? Did he act on himself? I'd think not. Did he act on the universe? He couldn't have, because that would mean the universe existed before it existed. So God acted on nothing, which is to say that he didn't act on anything. If he didn't act on anything, can you tell me exactly what he did? In what discernible way is there a difference between doing nothing and not acting on anything? If God truly did nothing, then at most we can say that he merely observed the universe coming into existence for no reason and with no cause. God observed the creation event and did not participate.

All you can say is that God somehow, someway caused the universe to exist in direct violation of all known logic and that we have no way of understanding it or even explaining coherently what we are talking about. The best you can assert is that either God violated logic in creating the universe or did something utterly incomprehensible. That is a long way from a rational conclusion. The prime mover argument is utterly dead in the water, but that's the least of our problems because we not only have no pathway to the conclusion but in fact we don't even know what the conclusion actually is! We don't even have a clue what we are talking about and in no way, shape, or form can we say that God's creation of the universe is analogous to a potter making a pot.

If aliens visited our planet and had technologies and wonders never seen, we would still in principle know that we could not only understand but in fact duplicate their feats if only we had enough energy or the correct arrangement of matter. But when it comes to God and his act of creation, well, forget duplicating it because we can't even comprehend it - there is no amount of energy, there is no arrangement of matter, there is no arrangement of logical symbols that will help us even understand in principle what God did.




Papazoom then goes on to mention intelligent design in life.

The confusion that bogs the Christian position in general is the fallacious correlation between complexity and order. Quite the contrary: complex things are chaotic, and simple things are ordered. The ordered arrangement of books on a shelf is simple; if, however, the books are strewn about the floor in a chaotic manner, then their arrangement is complex. Simplicity goes with order and complexity goes with disorder. The fact that the universe is complex indicates that it is chaotic, not ordered, and hence not designed.

As for design itself, the thing that indicates design is redesign. The first televisions, I believe, used tubes; televisions have since been completely redesigned and do not use tubes at all. We do not see televisions with vestigial tubes which are either no longer in use or else repurposed for something else. Since televisions are intelligently designed, the things which are no longer necessary are removed: redesign. Similarly, telephones look nothing like how they did originally. The first telephones used primitive land lines and the input part was separated physically from the output part. Examine the first phone and a modern phone and you will find little to nothing in common, including the purpose for which they are even used.

Conversely, we see no elements of redesign in biology. If gorillas and humans truly have no common ancestor, then God truly designed gorillas and then redesigned humans as an unrelated project. Yet we have chromosomal and retroviral evidence to corroborate common ancestry. Humans have the same essential parts as gorillas, and what's more, all mammals have quite a lot of the same characteristics: four limbs each with five digits, a head, a body, and a tail. I'm sorry but I must have missed the redesign. Also, why do our cells copy all DNA from the whole body when they self-replicate? Seems a bit redundant. I know that we start off as one cell in the womb, but at some point stem cells become dedicated to a specific purpose and at that point it is unnecessary for cells in your toenail to carry and copy information pertaining to your eyeball. Could it be that perhaps the mechanism by which DNA is replicated was refined in single-celled organisms (where it is indeed necessary to copy all information) over the course of trillions upon trillions of generations long before multicellular life ever came about? Please explain the point of intelligently designing so much redundancy.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Conversely, we see no elements of redesign in biology. If gorillas and humans truly have no common ancestor, then God truly designed gorillas and then redesigned humans as an unrelated project. Yet we have chromosomal and retroviral evidence to corroborate common ancestry. Humans have the same essential parts as gorillas, and what's more, all mammals have quite a lot of the same characteristics: four limbs each with five digits, a head, a body, and a tail. I'm sorry but I must have missed the redesign.

If I build a building and use brick, concrete, steel, glass, wood, copper, etc it does not follow that the next building I build I have to use totally different materials. I will use mostly the same type of materials just in different combination, locations and proportions.....just like God did with DNA. Your example fails.....

 

[StTruth]

If I build a building and use brick, concrete, steel, glass, wood, copper, etc it does not follow that the next building I build I have to use totally different materials. I will use mostly the same type of materials just in different combination, locations and proportions.....just like God did with DNA. Your example fails.....

I think I know what nihilist virus means. Sometimes, a complete redesign is to be preferred. I read why there are serious faults in our bodies because humans were not re-designed. Something about the prostate and there is something too about the nerve that coils round the chest and goes back somewhere. I don't remember the details but someone good at Biology will probably know. It seems the incremental changes due to natural selection give us a body that could have been better if it had been redesigned. Your example of using the same materials for buildings may be all right for buildings but for animals including men, it may not be that appropriate.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What other kind of DNA do you want to use? Is there any other kind? Remember, it must be survivable in this environment and be able to do the things we do? Or can you concede God know better than you or me) when it comes to these matters?
BTW, if you did not have a prostate 1)Male orgasims would be less intense since the force of [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] increases the sensation and 2) the testicles would have to be about 2-3X their present size in order to compensate in making seminal fluid.....we would probably walk funny and our pants owuld need a major redesign.
You must be talking about the vagal nerve.....what about it?
My A&P was 40 years ago, took a few minutes to recall some of this......