The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

I'm a little disappointed to see another fine tuning thread, because it is a series of logical fallacies, and I thought this had been established long ago.

Then you are mistaken.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which calculations - the ones you claim exist but refuse to show us? How could I possibly know what level of math is involved if you won't tell us what math is involved?

I'm sure in some circles this sort of evasion is thought of as clever. I'm not impressed. If you actually had an answer you wouldn't be wasting everyone's time like this.

How can I give you the math if you are unwilling to tell me what calculations you are asking for.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Ok you sent me here and again nothing. The actual numbers for the odds of what? The odds for the universe? The odds for life existing? For life not existing? You give this general statement and then expect me to know what you want.

 

[Oafman]

That is your opinion but physicists disagree.

Mot physicists do not agree that Goddidit.

Most physicists recognise that different constants would give us a very different universe. Where you divert from their views is when you say 'therefore Goddidit'.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Mot physicists do not agree that Goddidit.

So? Many who are even atheists claim it is a valid explanation but feel that since it isn't "scientific" it doesn't get them anywhere. I disagree, of course.

Most physicists recognise that different constants would give us a very different universe. Where you divert from their views is when you say 'therefore Goddidit'.

The fact is that fine tuning exists as a real phenomena. The facts don't change whether you attribute them to a multiverse or God. The point of the thread if we ever get there is why I feel God is a better explanation. Can I prove God did it? No. I just feel God is the better explanation.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Fine tuning is just the latest God of the Gaps argument.

You can not falsify fine tuning without falsifying the theory of evolution. Most people on this board do not even attempt to falsify theistic evolution because they realize they can not falsify theistic evolution without falsifying atheistic evolution.

 

[KCfromNC]

How can I give you the math if you are unwilling to tell me what calculations you are asking for.

I'm unconvinced that is the reason you can't provide anything concrete to back up your claims.

But anyway, I'm asking specifically for the math you brought up in posts 193, 196 and 199. Did you not know what you meant when you claimed it existed and supported your ideas?

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok you sent me here and again nothing. The actual numbers for the odds of what?

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

Bolded to make it easier to find the claim you're desperately running away from. How close are we, exactly? Let's see if your posts are more than just empty rhetoric.

 

[Oafman]

The facts don't change whether you attribute them to a multiverse or God.

The choices are not 'multiverse or God'. The choices are multiverse, God, coincidence, or something else we don't yet understand. (3 is improbable, 1 and 4 might be the same thing!)

Every other God of the gaps argument that has ever been made turned out to be option 4. It seems very unlikely that this one will end differently.

Can I prove God did it? No. I just feel God is the better explanation.

I think you had your conclusion before you even asked the question. You're looking to confirm it. That's the wrong way to go about investigating something.

 

[Oafman]

You can not falsify fine tuning without falsifying the theory of evolution. Most people on this board do not even attempt to falsify theistic evolution because they realize they can not falsify theistic evolution without falsifying atheistic evolution.

Humour me. How are these related?

 

[lesliedellow]

The choices are not 'multiverse or God'. The choices are multiverse, God, coincidence, or something else we don't yet understand. (3 is improbable, 1 and 4 might be the same thing!)

Every other God of the gaps argument that has ever been made turned out to be option 4. It seems very unlikely that this one will end differently.

The physical sciences need an already extant physical universe to observe and do science on. The moment you try to push it back beyond time t=0, you leave the realm of physics, and enter the realm of metaphysical speculation.

 

[Oafman]

The physical sciences need an already extant physical universe to observe and do science on. The moment you try to push it back beyond time t=0, you leave the realm of physics, and enter the realm of metaphysical speculation.

Are you contending that this is the final ever God of the gaps argument, and will never be debunked?

You may well be right, but that's probably been said about all the rest.

 

[lesliedellow]

Are you contending that this is the final ever God of the gaps argument, and will never be debunked?

You may well be right, but that's probably been said about all the rest.

If the Big Bang Theory is right, then that theory itself precludes the possibility of our ever being able to directly observe the very early universe, let alone anything which preceded it.

 

[Oafman]

If the Big Bang Theory is right, then that theory itself precludes the possibility of our ever being able to directly observe the very early universe, let alone anything which preceded it.

If you are right, and this never gets settled, then the fine tuning argument can never be used to establish the existence of God. Because we will always have to make the leap of ignorance (constants are just right ---> errrrr ---> God!)

 

[Oncedeceived]

False.

For example, if one of your ancestors would have died before having children, you would not exist.

True.

One of your ancestors never being born, would pretty much prohibit the existence of his/her entire collection of off spring. That would include you.

True.

Which is the exact same with your ancestry. The only difference is scale.

This is where you are wrong.

I'ld even go so far as stating that you owe your existence to an inumerable amount of causal links into the past, right up to the very start of the universe. Links both big and small.

For example, if that meteor would have hit Mexico some 65 million years ago, humans as a species might never have existed.

And So? You are missing the point.

It's called the butterfly effect.

Yes...but no that is not the same.

Yes. Just like there is a chain of necessities for you to exist at all.

Again, if things were different then things would be different.



Unlikely events happen all the time.

That too is true but you are speaking generally and not scientifically. Where there are a series of such events and they all have something in common that is predicted by a hypothesis scientifically we see that as evidence for the hypothesis. In biology for instance, we know that if an organism is similar in DNA sequences they are related and did not arrive there randomly by unrelated organisms. We know that it would be extremely unlikely for unrelated organisms to randomly arrive at the same DNA Sequences. This provides support for the hypothesis of common descent. The same is true of fine tuning.

In the fine-tuning case, a series of fundamental constant of physics such as various particle masses and force strengths all happen to take on values in a narrow range that permits life. So when we see related components in a series of events that arrive in a certain way we know that it is unlikely for a reason.

Having said that, the problem with your argument is that you are, obviously, trying to insert your god into answers that aren't available.

I haven't really inserted God yet other than claiming He is a better explanation.

An explanation is lacking and you try to stuff that gap with a god.
This is not reasonable.
"god(s) dun it" has never been a satisfying explanation for everything.

In fact, in the history of the human species, not once did a supernatural "explanation" turn out to be demonstrably the correct one. What makes you think that this time it will be any different?

God did it actually has been pretty satisfying. It was in that mindset that modern science has its foundation.

 

[lesliedellow]

If you are right, and this never gets settled, then the fine tuning argument can never be used to establish the existence of God. Because we will always have to make the leap of ignorance (constants are just right ---> errrrr ---> God!)

Atheists require something which comes very close to watertight proof of God's existence. Theists can be content with something which seems to point towards the existence of the God they already believe in for other reasons.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am going out, so I will get to the new posts when I return. Here is a link that has some of the math asked for: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

 

[Oafman]

Atheists require something which comes very close to watertight proof of God's existence.

That's a slightly unfair characterisation. I think most of us just want something plausible. And anyway, I'm yet to hear a good reason why God can't give us the watertight proof.

Theists can be content with something which seems to point towards the existence of the God they already believe in for other reasons.

Conclusion first leaves you wide open to confirmation bias.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's a slightly unfair characterisation. I think most of us just want something plausible. And anyway, I'm yet to hear a good reason why God can't give us the watertight proof.


Conclusion first leaves you wide open to confirmation bias.

Any sort of belief, along the lines that something is true, leaves you wide open to confirmation bias.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am going out, so I will get to the new posts when I return. Here is a link that has some of the math asked for: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

This paper has a very different definition of fine-tuning than you are using. That's certainly interesting. So does the fact that the start of section 4 directly contradicts your assertion in post 116 that FT clams are based on observation. As does the fact that then end of section 4.1 cautions people not to use the arguments that sound a lot like what you're proposing.

Have you actually read this paper?