The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Then why all the distraction and diversion? Why not just answer the question?

What question is that?

 

[Athée]

Yet, the majority of the scientists coming in on the issue claim what I have that the universe is not a result of chance.

This is the claim that I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with. Maybe if I restate it a different way you will see why. In essence you are saying:
It is a confirmed matter of public record that the majority of scientists in relevant fields believe that the universe was designed.
When you say it is not by chance then by default it is by intention. As far as we know only concious beings have intentions and so you are claiming that most scientists agree with you that an intelligent being designed the universe. Do you have any evidence of that?
(I will also do some searching to see if I can verify your claim for you but lets work on that one together)
I think it will be more helpful to try to discover what the scientific concensus is on the subject rather than us going back and forth with a couple science voices from each side

Perhaps, you didn't intend to but it is the outcome. The analogy is representing how the argument 1 out of 1 is not very convincing when faced with a whole regiment of marksmen firing straight at you and you left standing. Another example would be the royal flush 30 consecutive times would be remarkable and no one would believe that it was just by chance.

I was really interested by your first analogy but obviously I didn't understand it. Could you spell it out for me, what all the parts represent before giving me a whole new one to be confused about?

 

[Athée]

We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.

Well not quite actually. You need to know that those other possible sets of values were actually viable options. That the values we observe in our universe were in some sense selected from a nber of possible options. We don't k ow this to be the case.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is the claim that I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with. Maybe if I restate it a different way you will see why. In essence you are saying:
It is a confirmed matter of public record that the majority of scientists in relevant fields believe that the universe was designed.
When you say it is not by chance then by default it is by intention. As far as we know only concious beings have intentions and so you are claiming that most scientists agree with you that an intelligent being designed the universe. Do you have any evidence of that?

That is not what I am saying. I am not claiming most scientists agree that an Intelligent Being designed the universe, some do and some don't. I am supporting my premise which you yourself constructed PA2: The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely. I believe I've shown that the majority of scientists do not believe that the universe exists with its fine tuning and structure by a chance event. That is the conclusion based on the evidence we have, and what the default position is or is not doesn't change that fact. It think it is apparent that the trouble with the people in the thread, is that they understand the implications of it not being a chance event. People can dig their heels in and claim it is a chance event but when the majority of experts in the field claim they don't believe that, then they do that in spite of the evidence rather than because of it.

(I will also do some searching to see if I can verify your claim for you but lets work on that one together)
I think it will be more helpful to try to discover what the scientific concensus is on the subject rather than us going back and forth with a couple science voices from each side

What seems to be your objection when scientific consensus on both are the same?

I was really interested by your first analogy but obviously I didn't understand it. Could you spell it out for me, what all the parts represent before giving me a whole new one to be confused about?

When looking at the universe as it exists and the fact that we exist may seem unsurprising if we look at the general question; but if we look at each part of the equation we see the surprising factors in it. IF you were in front of one marksman, if he missed it wouldn't be expected but it wouldn't be that remarkable or improbable but when say 30 marksmen are firing it becomes unlikely and most improbable that they just missed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well not quite actually. You need to know that those other possible sets of values were actually viable options. That the values we observe in our universe were in some sense selected from a nber of possible options. We don't k ow this to be the case.

With the evidence that we have now, there is no reason to think that they could not be anything but what they are. It could be of course but the evidence doesn't support that. Have you read the link I gave you about tweaking the constants?

 

[Robert Palase]

Is this crazy or is it me?

Because we exist there must be a designer, the only way there would not be a designer would be if we didn't exist.
The odds on us existing because of chance is so incredible it's too much to contemplate, so it's much more likely that a being exists in the supernatural that decided to create everything and make us in his own image.

 

[AirPo]

We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.

If we know what would happen, then the pobability is 1

 

[Athée]

I am supporting my premise which you yourself constructed PA2: The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely. I believe I've shown that the majority of scientists do not believe that the universe exists with its fine tuning and structure by a chance event

Maybe there is some confusion between us about what the word chance means. In my re-statement of your argument I said that if something does not happen by chance, then it happened on purpose. Do you agree with that?
If so would you also agree that for something to have a purpose, a consious being must give it one?

What seems to be your objection when scientific consensus on both are the same?

You have not demonstrated that the scientific consensus is that "the universe and it's values are not the product of chance". You have asserted it and given a handful of opinions from a couple scientists (and even those don't entirely agree with you). Or maybe I missed a link or something when you actually did establish this. If so could you repost it for me. Thanks

When looking at the universe as it exists and the fact that we exist may seem unsurprising if we look at the general question; but if we look at each part of the equation we see the surprising factors in it. IF you were in front of one marksman, if he missed it wouldn't be expected but it wouldn't be that remarkable or improbable but when say 30 marksmen are firing it becomes unlikely and most improbable that they just missed.

So basically this is not an analogy at all. You are simply saying that snipers missing is unlikely and the universe is even more unlikely therfore we have to conclude that it is on purpose. Is that right?
I could say when I drop a ball it falls to the ground every time (baring interference) , this is not surprising and there is no need to invoke design. The only universe we observe has life and so it is even less complex than my gravity example (because of possible intwrference) therefore we should conclude that it too is not designed. Not super helpful right?

Again to object to your quasi analogy. The purpose of a firing squad is to kill a human. This is why it is surprising when it doesn't happen. We can't claim that the purpose of the universe is to create life so the scenario falls apart.

I think part of the problem is that you want to say that life is unique in a special way. I seem to recall talking about the black and white ball example. That if we have a trillion black balls and only one white one , the chances are so low as to be rediculous of chosen the white one at random. But that analogy is also flawed. Any universe with any set of values would be unique in its own way. Maybe one would have whole planets made of gold, or one would have no electrons, or one would have serpentine galaxies.etc. So it is not 1 trillion black balls and one super special white one. It is a trillion balls with slightly different shades of grey on them, each unique and special in its own way. Each "fine tuned" , to the conditions that would be observed in that universe.

With the evidence that we have now, there is no reason to think that they could not be anything but what they are. It could be of course but the evidence doesn't support that. Have you read the link I gave you about tweaking the constants?

Right I agree. There is no reason to think that the values we observe are necessary, likewise there is no evidence to believe that they are entirely random. So the default remains....we don't know and therfore we can't do any probability calculus.

 

[pat34lee]

31 pages and we still haven't got past "We don't know, therefore God".

Or, on the other side, "We don't want God, so any other explanation
will have to do."

 

[bhsmte]

Or, on the other side, "We don't want God, so any other explanation
will have to do."

Or, we see no evidence of a God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or, we see no evidence of a God.

Says a guy posting in AD 2016.

 

[bhsmte]

Says a guy posting in AD 2016.

As are you.

 

[AV1611VET]

As are you.

 

[Robert Palase]

You are telling us you place your trust in men, great.
'In God we trust' was put on coins by men in 1864 and on paper money in 1957, the Bible was also written by men, great.
In some countries in Africa it has 'In the great JuJu we trust' on the coins, how great is that?[that's not true but it could be]

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is unknown?

How a universe originates, how the 'laws of physics' are set and if they even can be different, how the "physical constants" are assigned a value and if they even can be different,...

Pretty much everything that you simply assume in your premises, is unknown in reality.

So?

You say "so?", but it completely undermines your argument.

That only shows that the universe is exactly the way it is

Yes, indeed. The point exactly.

It only supports fine tuning all the more.

They are tuned. The explanation would have to explain why.

NO.

They just have a value. "tuned" is a loaded term.

Yet, scientists who know what they know think it is not an argument from ignorance but one of knowledge.

Scientists don't make this argument.
You are just taking a few opinions and remarks of scientists and then drawing your own conclusion, pretending those scientists would agree with you.

Opinions based on what they know.

Opinions are opinions.

Really? How would you know what I think it says?

You referenced it in a certain context.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.

False. What you need to know to get to the probability is how those values are assigned, how they originate and if they can uberhaupt take on different values in an actually real universe, instead of just an arbitrary different value in a formula on paper!!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why do we need to know what conditions would be present prior to the universe to determine fine tuning? We find the actual value they do have and we can tweak them in scientific models.

Again: you can tweak them on paper only. You can't go into the lab and actually change those values to see what happens.

You can only do this on paper. You can only change the value of the parameter and work out the equation to see what happens.

That, however, says nothing about if those values can actually have different values in actual reality. Nore does it say anything about the mechanism by which those values are assigned during the origination of a universe.

All of which are things that must be known, to be able to make a probability calculation of the parameters having the values that they have.


Having said that, no matter how improbable it turns out to be... No amount of "improbable" will be a justifified reason to then conlcude "therefor god...." without actually demonstrating said god as well as the process by which this god assigned those values.

If the probability is your only data, then the only thing that would justify a hypothesis of "tuning", would be if the probability of these values being what they are is zero. Meaning: that this universe is impossible. Then you'ld have to search for an explanation of how a universe can exist that is impossible to exist by natural means.

Because only a probability of zero, means that something is impossible.



It seems that you have a lot of work ahead of you.

 

[AV1611VET]

'In God we trust' was put on coins by men in 1864 and on paper money in 1957, the Bible was also written by men, great.

Sounds patriarchal, doesn't it?

 

[KCfromNC]

We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.

Can you point to the term in Bayes' theorem which represents "what would happen if the constants were tweaked"? I'm pretty sure you're just making this up but let's see.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why do we need to know what conditions would be present prior to the universe to determine fine tuning? We find the actual value they do have and we can tweak them in scientific models.

That's great if you're trying to support the first premise - that if things were different they'd be different. But we're talking about the second premise : that the values we see are unlikely. To know that you'd have to know how the fundamental constants arose. Without that, you're just guessing at the odds.