Why is there no reason to think there is? What is your reasoning to believe there is no Intelligent Being responsible?
Upvote
0
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.
Why is there no reason to think there is? What is your reasoning to believe there is no Intelligent Being responsible?Names and posts of anyone who says it is impossible that the Invisible Pink Unicorn fine tuned the universe to that My Little Pony would be made, please.
No one is saying that it is impossible there's some sort of fine tuner responsible. It is just that there's no reason to think there is.
Fine tuning is what it is and if it were not we would not be here discussing it. It wouldn't matter whether God fine tuned the universe with fundamental constants that could not be different and would guarantee our existence or whether they could have been different but He chose the ones out of a multitude of possible ones and tweaked them to specifically allow our existence. The outcome...US was His intent. If it could be shown that just any fundamental constants could give rise to life such as us then there would be no fine tuning involved in our arrival. That is not an argument from ignorance but one of known data...the fundamental constants being set to allow us.So basically it is somewhere between wildly unlikely and a dead certainty that the universal constants would be compatible with life as we know it. And no matter what range along that continuum, it is certainly evidence for gods. And definitely not an argument from ignorance in any way.
Uh huh. Sure it is.
When you come to the same conclusion no matter what the facts might be, is it really the facts leading to a that conclusion?
As with any explanation it is what best explains the data. I believe that theism best explains the data.
It makes no sense for a lot of fine tuners
you could not be the fine tuner you have not always existed
there is no evidence for a chain of fine tuners all causing each other
At last we come to the real reason for all of this : "because I really wish it were true because it fits with my religious preconceptions"and it is not consistent with theism.
Why do the scientific sources say (1)? That is an important question. Many have said that God could be the explanation but one in which they don't allow because it isn't scientific. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense, or that it doesn't explain it best but that it isn't something scientific.That would be your job - because you are the one who concludes from (1) on (2).
I am just pointing out that those scientific source say (1).
Why is there no reason to think there is?
Never said I did.What is your reasoning to believe there is no Intelligent Being responsible?
That is not an argument from ignorance but one of known data...the fundamental constants being set to allow us.
All "fine tuning" presented thus far only gets us to "fine tuned for rocks" at best. Given that there are lots of rocks all over the universe, that seems like a potential theory. If you are saying that the simple fact we ended up existing makes it fine tuned just for us, well, bacteria exist and have had a far better run.If an Intelligent Being wished to create a universe specifically for created intelligent beings making certain the universe would give rise to these intelligent beings would be evident by the necessary elements for their existence be present in that universe. If the universe has those properties that allow for those life forms to exist whether they could or could not be different would not affect the outcome. If God provided the needed calculations for the universe to permit complex life and set them so that they could not be different so as to quarantee their arrival it would be 100% certainty that they would, it would still be fine tuned to allow for complex life to exist. The same is true if He took all the possible combinations and tweaked them just right with all the possibilities to allow for complex life to exist...fine tuned still shown. The only way to eliminate the fine tuning of the universe is show that complex life such as ours could exist in another universe in a different set of fundamental constants. That would show that complex life could arise with different fundamental constants and still give rise to intelligent beings.
Because that´s what´s observable.Why do the scientific sources say (1)?
This isn´t about allowing or not allowing - it´s about clarifying what those scientific sources you are quoting mean when saying "fine-tuned".Many have said that God could be the explanation but one in which they don't allow because it isn't scientific.
No, it just means you need to explain how you get from (1) to (2) - instead of using them as though they were interchangeable.That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense,
It doesn´t explain anything.or that it doesn't explain it best
I totally understand your point, I just disagree with it. If a deck (universe) has only a single card (30 constants), it would still need to be fine tuned to allow for complex life. It would just mean that the universe was specifically fine tuned to permit complex life and could do nothing but permit complex life. It would even make a better argument for God as it would show that not only did God create the universe it was specifically created for us to arise and no other group of constants were used because of that purpose. That is why the multiverse is being promoted.
How would it be intellectual dishonesty? I have provided sources from scientists that say that complex life is very rare and most simulated models of other universes can not give rise to complex life of any kind...ours or any other. In fact, not only complex life of any kind but life at all seems to be non-existent in most other models. Please then explain how it is intellectually dishonest when one has support to their claims?If it wasn't a semantic misstep then it borders on intellectual dishonesty which is why I assumed the former. It has repeatedly been pointed out that we are only talking about life as we know it and so to say that complex life (instead of "our form of complex life") requires the constants we observe is speculative at best.
It is demonstrated by the universe being fine tuned to the exact requirements of intelligent beings arising in this universe. That is the demonstration of fine tuning.I think I see your pint with regard to my analogy. You are saying that even if there is only one card in the deck that your God made that card. In your worldview that makes sense although it is of course not demonstrable in any way.
I think in all honesty I am getting pretty close to the end of my interstate in this paricular topic. It has been a great discussion and I have very much enjoyed being exposed to the best Christian apologetics has to offer on the subject even if I remain unconvinced
This is what we do know:It still seems to me like an argument from ignorance although I know you disagree. Essentially we don't know how our universe came to be or how it is or if there is any reason it has the features it does. We don't know of the constants could be different or not. There is no answer to the life as we know it objection or to the multiverse or mega verse possibilities. There is no demonstrable link between the features of our universe and any specific deity. And into this sea of unknown elements you are asserting that your God did it. You are of course welcome to speculate to this effect but I have not seen any evidence that this is the case and some to the contrary.
Anytime.Thanks again
And nothing can stop you from your own a priori worldview. You are equating man with God which is not the case. You have no actual good argument for fine tuning and so you make ignorant comments.Good on you. Keep on believing. Nothing can stop you!
Why? We see teams of designers here in the real world all the time. Why can't they exist in magical play-time land as well?
I fine tuned things back through time. Evidence? The fact that things are fine tuned, obviously.
Sure there is - the fact that fine tuning exists.
At last we come to the real reason for all of this : "because I really wish it were true because it fits with my religious preconceptions"
I did say I would give you the last word so I will only respond to the first point since you asked. I don't actually think you are being intellectually dishonest, I think it is just loose use of language. What I was pointing out is evident in your response as well when you said "I have provided sources from scientists that say that complex life is very rare and most simulated models of other universes can not give rise to complex life of any kind...ours or any other." I think what you mean is that you have provided sources showing that carbon based life in our universe is possibly or probably extremely rare if not one of a kind. But again this only addresses life as we know it so you can't say, as you did above, that we have evidence that no form of comex life that is not life as we know it could arise under different constants.How would it be intellectual dishonesty? I have provided sources from scientists that say that complex life is very rare and most simulated models of other universes can not give rise to complex life of any kind...ours or any other. In fact, not only complex life of any kind but life at all seems to be non-existent in most other models. Please then explain how it is intellectually dishonest when one has support to their claims?
It is demonstrated by the universe being fine tuned to the exact requirements of intelligent beings arising in this universe. That is the demonstration of fine tuning.
I am glad that you enjoy the discussion, however, you seemed not to interested in joining in especially when you were the reason this thread was opened. Oh well.I didn't hold out any real hope that you would be convinced, it is hard to be convinced of something that you don't agree exists and when your mind set is so against what is being promoted. I can only hope that knowing that God exists and knowing how important these questions are to all intelligent life on this planet, that as limited as we human beings are in regard to explaining how we see evidence in our own lives and how that is confirmed in the universe that I make as clear and honest argument from that position.
This is what we do know:
1. The universe has the exact parameters that allow for intelligent life.
2. There is only empirical evidence for our universe.
Due to scientific models and calculations we have good reasons to think:
There is no life possible on most of the planets in our solar system and now coming from a view that life would be plentiful in the universe; scientists now believe that life at all is probably rare and and complex life probably doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe.
Even if there are other universes, which can not be demonstrated, life would be extremely rare and complex life even rarer if it existed at all.
So considering what we know, your argument seems to be based on ignorance and speculation. In fact, the evidence is in favor of my claim and yours is based on speculation. You speculate that this is not the only universe, this is not the only complex life possible, you speculate that the constants might or might not be different when we know in this universe they are constant and set exactly where they need to be for us to exist. You have no reason for there to be a universe at all. Why there is life at all. You have no reason why the universe is explained by mathematics for instance, or why we thinking mathematically in abstract concepts. That is why I feel the fine tuning and in fact existence is best explained by theism and no one in this entire thread has given any concrete evidence against such a claim or any evidence that would show the claims are invalid.
Anytime.
What is observable is that there is one universe and it has the life permitting fundamental constants that are precisely what they are required to have to allow intelligent life.Because that´s what´s observable.
They mean it is fine tuned for intelligent life to exist. That is what I've posted. God is an explanation that has been given for thousands and thousands of years. It is an explanation, it might not be one you accept but it is an explanation and one in which billions of people think best explains the universe.This isn´t about allowing or not allowing - it´s about clarifying what those scientific sources you are quoting mean when saying "fine-tuned".
Plus, "Goddidit" has never been and still is no explanation. It is assertion.
You are welcome to have that opinion.No, it just means you need to explain how you get from (1) to (2) - instead of using them as though they were interchangeable.
It doesn´t explain anything.
I didn't say it didn't answer the problem posed by the Fine-Tuning argument, I said that isn't the reason why it is being promoted. Schrodinger came up with the multi-worlds idea before Dicke came up with his Fine-Tuning argument too, so it wasn't written as a response to the argument either.Actually that is not true. Bernard Carr actually said: “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
Thgat´s (1).What is observable is that there is one universe and it has the life permitting fundamental constants that are precisely what they are required to have to allow intelligent life.
It´s an assertion, not an explanation. And, yes, that´s what humans have been doing for ages: Whenever something deems them insignificant and they had no explanation, they conveniently postulated some obscure conscious entities as the cause. Until an actual explanation was eventually found (and even then, they often kept believing in this entity).God is an explanation that has been given for thousands and thousands of years.
No, it´s not. An explanation answers the question "how?".It is an explanation, it might not be one you accept but it is an explanation
Bandwaggon appeals aren´t that impressive.and one in which billions of people think best explains the universe.
Of course. We can actually see man designing things. Not so for gods.You are equating man with God which is not the case.
You have no actual good argument for fine tuning and so you make ignorant comments.
I don't wish something to be true. I could have lived just fine when I wasn't aware of God. I would have lived much the way I had always lived. God changed it all when He revealed Himself and the universe is confirmation of His existence as well.
Hey, if I can time travel back billions of years to fine tune the universe (and no one has presented evidence I can't) a talented physicist could have easily time traveled to the future to see what sorts of argument religious apologists would be making. Makes perfect sense.I didn't say it didn't answer the problem posed by the Fine-Tuning argument, I said that isn't the reason why it is being promoted. Schrodinger came up with the multi-worlds idea before Dicke came up with his Fine-Tuning argument too, so it wasn't written as a response to the argument either.
It was actually Hugh Everett that originated the theory, which was prior to Dicke yes but Dicke was not the originator of the premise of fine tuning. Early in the 1900, 1914 I believe maybe sooner a chemist named Henderson was working on the fine tuning. Yet, it wasn't until recently that the multiverse was considered to be a valid explanation.I didn't say it didn't answer the problem posed by the Fine-Tuning argument, I said that isn't the reason why it is being promoted. Schrodinger came up with the multi-worlds idea before Dicke came up with his Fine-Tuning argument too, so it wasn't written as a response to the argument either.
Nonsense.All "fine tuning" presented thus far only gets us to "fine tuned for rocks" at best. Given that there are lots of rocks all over the universe, that seems like a potential theory. If you are saying that the simple fact we ended up existing makes it fine tuned just for us, well, bacteria exist and have had a far better run.
How would you know if they couldn't be different that they aren't set?But again, if the values are set, that implies they could have been different. If they couldn't be different, they aren't set, they just are.
Pi comes up in equations and nature. Why would it come up in equations and nature if it is random?For example, pi comes up in all manner of equations, could pi be different? Does pi need to be set to be just as it is? I don't see how the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle could be different. If a circle's circumference was anything but pi times the diameter, it wouldn't be a circle.
How would you see design of God if you don't think the appearance of design is anything but an illusion?Of course. We can actually see man designing things. Not so for gods.
Why would I need an argument for it in the first place?
Uh huh, sure it is.
I have been the only one providing support for my claims. You have supplied nothing but assertion, speculation and anti-religious rhetoric.Hey, if I can time travel back billions of years to fine tune the universe (and no one has presented evidence I can't) a talented physicist could have easily time traveled to the future to see what sorts of argument religious apologists would be making. Makes perfect sense.
Or in other words, this thread would have been over months ago if reality was involved. No point in starting now.
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?