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.
Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.
How does a universe with other physics look like?
It couldhave completely different physics. That is perhaps outside of what can be discussed meaningfully. Or it could have the same laws with other values attached to it (other value for gravity for example).
Physics are fundamental workings of matter and energy, they cannot be changed.
Since the argument as presented here doesn´t go beyond claiming that it "seems to be designed", I guess it´s sufficient to respondSome of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.
Here are three arguments against the concept of fine tuning plus a more general argument on fine tuning as a proof of a god;
1.The Gunfighter Fallacy: A gunfighter, wearing a blindfold, shoots a single shot at a barn wall. He removes his blindfold and draws a target around the point where his bullet hit placing the bullet hole at the centre of the target. He then claims to have demonstrated the skill to hit the centre of a target when blindfolded.
The target is life while the bullet hole is the universe. Fine tuning claims that the universe (the bullet hole) is fine tuned for life (the target) when the reverse is true – the target (life) has been finetuned/drawn to centre the bullet hole (life).
2. The Puddle: This is another version of (1) above first articulated by Douglas Adams in A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Imagine a puddle in the middle of a road. The puddle is convinced that the depression it sits in was created just to house it, after all the depression is a perfect fit – how could it not have been created just for the puddle?
The depression is the universe and the puddle is life. Like the Gunfighter Fallacy, the Puddle confuses who caused what. The Puddle has actually accommodated itself to suit the depression.
3. The Real Odds for Life: What are the odds that the universe is fine tuned for life?
Imagine I place fifty two playing cards face down on a table. One of the cards is the Ace of Spades. I ask you to choose one card. What are the odds you will pick the Ace? The obvious answer is 1 in 52.
Now imagine I place one card face down on the table. It is the Ace of Spades. I ask you to pick up one card. What are the odds you will pick the Ace of Spades? The obvious answer is that you must pick up the Ace since it is the only card – the odds are 1 in 1.
The 52 card situation is the fine tuning argument as it is presented. The one card option is the reality. For any of the fine tuning variables how many different values are there? Since we only know of one value the answer must be one. We have nothing to indicate that there are other possible values. If each variable has only one value the odds that they will result in a universe as we know it (including life) are 1x 1x1x1x1 etc. etc. In other words – given the variables we have, the odds of life within this universe are 1 in 1.
The final issue concerns the usual extension of the fine tuning argument as a proof of God;
The universe is finetuned for life therefore... God exists
There’s an obvious problem here. Even if you accept the finetuning/life argument the existence of life does not automatically prove the existence of God. The Life therefore God linkage is simply assumed.
The existence of life (or ‘complexity’) does not automatically prove the existence of God.
OB
That's an impressive collection of strawmen you have got there.
1.The Gunfighter Fallacy
2. The Puddle:
3. The Real Odds for Life: What are the odds that the universe is fine tuned for life?
Now imagine I place one card face down on the table. It is the Ace of Spades. I ask you to pick up one card. What are the odds you will pick the Ace of Spades? The obvious answer is that you must pick up the Ace since it is the only card – the odds are 1 in 1.
The universe is finetuned for life therefore... God exists
There’s an obvious problem here. Even if you accept the finetuning/life argument the existence of life does not automatically prove the existence of God.
OB
There has been discussion abou the higgs boson and how natural laws that could have been vastly different than they are so I fell that is a misonterpretation of the depth of discussion.Since the argument as presented here doesn´t go beyond claiming that it "seems to be designed", I guess it´s sufficient to respond
Dont you see the problems? One cant just change "values" in physics thats not how it works.
Physics are fundamental workings of matter and energy, they cannot be changed.
That's an impressive collection of strawmen you have got there.
It is my habit when debating to try to be ethical, to stick with what I understand is reasonable, rational and truthful.
If you believe that I have breached my own ethical standards please let me know where I have gone wrong.
OB
The point is that, unless the fundamental constants had very tightly defined values, not only could life not exist, but the reason it couldn't exist is that chemistry couldn't exist either.
.
Why do I feel like I just entered the Twilight Zone?
OB
You had the bad luck to enter the discussion when the amount of proponents for fine tuning outstripped the opponents. It will get a bit less rough when the others are back. I want to excuse if my replies where to judgmental.
Why do I feel like I just entered the Twilight Zone?
OB
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?