The fine tuning of the universe.

[Subduction Zone]

The universe existed before life.

If life is going to come into existence in a universe, it will be the kind of life that can actually exist in said universe.

Yes, the anthropomorphic argument. Essentially correct but scientifically unsatisfying. Not that I am disagreeing with you. Most scientists wish to know a bit more of an answer than this one supplies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. And your point for providing it? See the point for me providing it was to show that fine tuning exists and is a real phenomena and those who do not share my views about Intelligent origins nevertheless know fine tuning is real.

I used it to show that you seemed to be in error in use of your quote of his work. His quote did not support the concept of a fine tuned universe being evidence for God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your own example was like that. Neither of us view it as likely that, say, 5 universes other than our own exist, and that's it, right? So, why address it? Why address a position neither of us have? My personal view is that, if other universes do exist, the number is probably high. Even if it is not, statistics in practice don't even work on a cosmic scale, so they're useless for applying to a multiverse of any dynamic.

I was using the multi-verse to show how fine tuning is not like a lottery. The multi-verse doesn't eliminate the fine tuning argument because there needs to be something that cranks out all those universes and produces the laws that govern them, that process would entail its own laws.

Automatically, no. I suppose some might not have heard the arguments I gave you, but here's the more important question: were they able to defeat my arguments without having logical flaws or biases? I won't assume they haven't heard my arguments, but that doesn't mean I should assume my arguments have been trashed.

Would you say the same of the scientists in biology and evolution?

Inevitable comment on my "hubris" addressed: If every time I debated, I assumed a smarter person on the opposing side had already defeated my argument, it wouldn't make much sense for me to bother with those arguments, now would it? Also, I am debating you, not hypothetical people that have already defeated my arguments. I would also say it's a tad presumptuous on your part that these smart people that share your position have a higher standard of evidence than you do, and thus must have an airtight defense of their position. From personal observation, a lot of people will admit that they can't scientifically defend their position, but that they have it anyways.

My point was that scientists in most fields of science are methodological in their work. Bias exists I agree. It exists in humans period. However, those biases do not affect the measurements of the fundamental constants nor the necessary requirements for this universe to exist including the intelligent life therein. Where bias comes in is in interpreting what those facts mean.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, the anthropomorphic argument. Essentially correct but scientifically unsatisfying. Not that I am disagreeing with you. Most scientists wish to know a bit more of an answer than this one supplies.

Sure. But I don't consider it an actual "answer".
Instead, I consider it like an obvious fact in no need of additional explanation.

If existing life would be the kind of life that actually could not exist in the universe, now THAT would require an explanation.

That things exist in such a way that they can actually exist, seems rather obvious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It seems to me that by "necessary", you actually mean "meant". Is that correct?

Your entire "fine tuning argument" seems to imply that the universe was meant for the purpose of bringing forward life. Is that correct?

If yes, what is your evidence for this?

My argument is based on the fine tuning of the universe. Right now, I have been trying to establish that fine tuning is a real phenomena. I mean any argument about fine tuning must begin with the reality of the phenomena being discussed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then they would be "constants" only in our universe. They would not be actual constants if they were variable. The whole argument relies on the concept that these "constants" could have been different, if they could have been different they are not constants.

This just doesn't make sense. They are constants but if they could have been different they are not constants...you seem to think that if we can show that they could have been different then that means they are variable. The point of fine tuning is that it seems they could be different and that is why it seems they were "set" on the ones needed for life to come into existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

... in hindsight. Teleological fallacy.

Here's a thought exercise for you...

Think back 5 generations in your bloodline.
2 parents.
4 grandparents.
8 great grandparents
etc

For YOU to exist, all those people had to meet, come together and have a child.
During the act, millions upon millions of sperm cells were deposited. Only one of which would result in the specific person in the family tree.

Imagine all the different parameters, variables etc that had to be "just right" in order for YOU to exist.

Imagine all the things going on in the lives of those people. The epidemics of flu and other deseases they survived, the wars, etc

So, was the past "fine tuned" so that you could exist?

The problem with your analogy is twofold. The first is that if these different parameters and variables were different I could still exist. Nothing would prohibit my existence. The fine tuning phenomena isn't just that there might be a different outcome but that there are so many necessary parameters that had to be just right for not only the universe itself to exist but the galaxy to be just right, and the planets locations, and the earth having just the right ones and water having just the right ones. It is a chain of necessities for this universe to exist, for the galaxy, for the planets, for earth, for water and for chemistry for life to exist at all. Secondly, say that I had a genetic disorder that is inherited but no one in my long line of ancestry has had it. I am this one rare case in the long line of ancestors that didn't have it but I have it and it can only be passed on genetically. That is what we are talking about. We'd have to find an explanation for this rare and unlikely event.

 

[KCfromNC]

The point is that something needs explaining.

Yes - it would be nice to get an explanation why creationists think they have any idea what the odds are that the fundamental constants in our universe are the way they are.

There are several strategies amongst atheistic scientists for coping with that. One is to suggest that we live in the only universe which can exist, because, for reasons unknown, the fundamental constants must have the values they do have. Another is to postulate a multiverse, containing a near infinitude of other universes, and we just happen to live in one of the few with chemistry. Another is to flatly deny that there is anything which needs explaining.

Funny how my objection fits into none of those categories. One wonders why you'd bring up these categories rather than just address my point.

What makes a theistic explanation different is that God is not a hypothesis recently dreamt up to explain away some recently discovered facts.

Mainly because it is not a hypothesis at all. Invoking magic isn't a scientific explanation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it makes the fault in your thinking clearer. You have determined after the fact that the result was special (in that it allowed for life) - while all others results would have been special if applying different criteria.

We could hardly do it before the fact. Seriously though, yes it is after the fact but so is every other finding or discovery of the past is. We know what life requires and how the universe with its physics allows it. We do know that it is special due to what would prohibit life and how close to that we are.

In the same way my example is not about drawing some row of numbers but about pulling my numbers.

Exactly: It´s like pulling out my numbers out of millions of other combinations.

No, it would not be like that at all. It would be like your numbers being pulled 30 or more times. Someone would think something was not right.

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem with your analogy is twofold. The first is that if these different parameters and variables were different I could still exist. Nothing would prohibit my existence. The fine tuning phenomena isn't just that there might be a different outcome but that there are so many necessary parameters that had to be just right for not only the universe itself to exist but the galaxy to be just right, and the planets locations, and the earth having just the right ones and water having just the right ones. It is a chain of necessities for this universe to exist, for the galaxy, for the planets, for earth, for water and for chemistry for life to exist at all.

It would be a lot more convincing to see answers to my questions about the actual math rather than just confident re-assertions of the same baseless claims.

 

[lesliedellow]

Mainly because it is not a hypothesis at all. Invoking magic isn't a scientific explanation.

Since when did something have carry the adjective scientific before it can be an explanation?

I am not a creationist, by the way, except in the broad sense that I think God is ultimately responsible for all that exists.

 

[KCfromNC]

We do know that it is special due to what would prohibit life and how close to that we are.

If you actually know this you could cite actual numbers for the odds. Feel free to start any time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let's see the math. Start with "what we've observed" about the probability distribution of the values of fundamental constants from all the universes "we've observed" coming into existence and go from there.

There is math, that is actually what measurements entail. We can't obviously view other universes but we can certainly model different ones mathematically and with computer programming.

 

[KCfromNC]

Since when did something have carry the adjective scientific before it can be an explanation?

Hey, you called it a hypothesis in a thread which claims that this whole mess is scientific. If you're just talking about religious dogma then I can't really fault you, other than for being off topic. And come to think of it, for avoiding answering the post of mine you originally responded to.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is math, that is actually what measurements entail. We can't obviously view other universes but we can certainly model different ones mathematically and with computer programming.

Make up your mind - either we can measure other universes or we can't. Which one is it?

Anyway, you know what would be more interesting than claiming you might be able to answer my question? Actually answering it. What are the odds of a universe with our fundamental constants existing? Please show your work.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you actually know this you could cite actual numbers for the odds. Feel free to start any time.

Actually scientists use what is called Bayesian Probability. Using this they can mathematically show probability.

 

[lesliedellow]

There is math, that is actually what measurements entail. We can't obviously view other universes but we can certainly model different ones mathematically and with computer programming.

Yes we can. That is how we know that this one is so special, and it is why Paul Davies doesn't buy the "this is the only universe which could exist" line of argument. The others give the appearance of being self consistent.

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually scientists use what is called Bayesian Probability. Using this they can mathematically show probability.

Don't leave us in suspense - what's the answer?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Make up your mind - either we can measure other universes or we can't. Which one is it?

Anyway, you know what would be more interesting than claiming you might be able to answer my question? Actually answering it. What are the odds of a universe with our fundamental constants existing? Please show your work.

You see I don't have to do the work myself. Its already been done. That is why there is a phenomena labeled "Fine Tuning".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes we can. That is how we know that this one is so special, and it is why Paul Davies doesn't buy the "this is the only universe which could exist" line of argument. The others give the appearance of being self consistent.

Not sure I'm following?