Vote: what is the best argument against fine tuning

[LaraLara]

Thank you.
I feel greatly reassured.
OB

It s difficult to stand alone against a group I just run into a simlar situation when I posted a multiverse parody in an atheist forum.

 

[Occams Barber]

I don't know. Why do you feel as if you have entered the twilight zone? Scientists who have no special theological axe to grind are puzzled:

https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
A universe made for me? Physics, fine-tuning and life

One of them makes a passing reference to God, only to dismiss it with the usual "who created God?"

My comment was aimed at the fairly confused responses from the OP... but since you asked

The following is a direct quote from your second article:

'These building blocks of the universe come with tight specifications and they never vary. Wherever you are in the universe, the mass of the electron, the speed of light (light is an electromagnetic wave), and the strength of the gravitational force is the same. In physics, we encounter these so-called fundamental constants so often, we barely give them a second thought.'

This is exactly the issue I was addressing in #3 of my post (The Odds for Life). If the constants are constant and we know of no other values, then the odds of the universe existing in its current form (for example: with life) are, axiomatically 1 in 1. This automatically refutes any need for any wonderment that things are what they are.

This is a fairly simple and self evident concept.
OB

 

[LaraLara]

My comment was aimed at the fairly confused responses from the OP... but since you asked

The following is a direct quote from your second article:

'These building blocks of the universe come with tight specifications and they never vary. Wherever you are in the universe, the mass of the electron, the speed of light (light is an electromagnetic wave), and the strength of the gravitational force is the same. In physics, we encounter these so-called fundamental constants so often, we barely give them a second thought.'

This is exactly the issue I was addressing in #3 of my post (The Odds for Life). If the constants are constant and we know of no other values, then the odds of the universe existing in its current form (for example: with life) are, axiomatically 1 in 1. This automatically refutes any need for any wonderment that things are what they are.

This is a fairly simple and self evident concept.
OB

The article seems to be more about talking that the higgs bosom should not be here than that life should not be here. Again my interest is more why complexity is here. As for your second quote that constant do not vary this is solely empiriic evidence based on a sample of one (universe). There is no causality modell of why the constants do not vary so this is not a scientific theory.

 

[lesliedellow]

My comment was aimed at the fairly confused responses from the OP... but since you asked

The following is a direct quote from your second article:

'These building blocks of the universe come with tight specifications and they never vary. Wherever you are in the universe, the mass of the electron, the speed of light (light is an electromagnetic wave), and the strength of the gravitational force is the same. In physics, we encounter these so-called fundamental constants so often, we barely give them a second thought.'

This is exactly the issue I was addressing in #3 of my post (The Odds for Life). If the constants are constant and we know of no other values, then the odds of the universe existing in its current form (for example: with life) are, axiomatically 1 in 1. This automatically refutes any need for any wonderment that things are what they are.

This is a fairly simple and self evident concept.
OB

Only in the sense that the odds of Tower Bridge existing is 1 in 1, because it already exists.

 

[TBDude65]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc = after this, therefore because of this

The "fine tuning argument" makes a critical error in assuming that the universe is adapted to life when it is literally the opposite that is true. Life has adapted to the universe.

All the "fine tuning" argument can logically conclude is that if any given parameter of the universe were different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. We don't know what exactly the universe would be like or if life would be possible or impossible in universes with different parameters. All we can say is "I don't know." Trying to draw any other conclusion from that argument is baseless and complete speculation without evidence to support its assumptions.

 

[Occams Barber]

Only in the sense that the odds of Tower Bridge existing is 1 in 1, because it already exists.

By George! I think he's got it!
OB

 

[LaraLara]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc = after this, therefore because of this

The "fine tuning argument" makes a critical error in assuming that the universe is adapted to life when it is literally the opposite that is true. Life has adapted to the universe.

All the "fine tuning" argument can logically conclude is that if any given parameter of the universe were different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. We don't know what exactly the universe would be like or if life would be possible or impossible in universes with different parameters. All we can say is "I don't know." Trying to draw any other conclusion from that argument is baseless and complete speculation without evidence to support its assumptions.

You did not notice that we are discussing here not only life but complexity in general.

 

[TBDude65]

You did not notice that we are discussing here not only life but complexity in general.

Irrelevant. Complexity doesn't provide any validation to a "fine tuning" argument

 

[lesliedellow]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc = after this, therefore because of this

The "fine tuning argument" makes a critical error in assuming that the universe is adapted to life when it is literally the opposite that is true. Life has adapted to the universe.

Life cannot adapt to anything unless it already exists. Life cannot exist unless chemistry exists. Chemistry cannot exist unless elements other than hydrogen and helium exist. Elements heavier than hydrogen and helium can exist only if stars exist. Stars can exist only if gravity is tuned to one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000

Do atheists think scientists are completely stupid, and would have made the elementary logical errors they imagine them to have made?

 

[TBDude65]

Life cannot adapt to anything unless it already exists. Life cannot exist unless chemistry exists. Chemistry cannot exist unless elements other than hydrogen and helium exist. Elements heavier than hydrogen and helium can exist only if stars exist. Stars can exist only if gravity is tuned to one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000

And the "fine tuning" argument can't and doesn't provide any logical or rational or evidence-based reason to conclude that a universe with different parameters would be incapable of chemical reactions or elements. Literally the only conclusion one can draw from the "fine tuning" argument is that the universe would be different if it were different.

 

[LaraLara]

I see a need to explain what a scientific theory is in general. It is empiric evidence COMBINED with a model of causation.

Causation: I do not believe that electricity causes light because I can switch it on and off but because there is model of quantum mechanics explaining how electricity becomes light.

For a similar reason I am unintersted that empiric observation tell me that the physical laws do not vary inside this universe. I want a superrule that caused all this laws having exactly the values they have. If you can not give me that superule the fine tuning arguments stands and it can be extended to other complex things than life.

 

[LaraLara]

And the "fine tuning" argument can't and doesn't provide any logical or rational or evidence-based reason to conclude that a universe with different parameters would be incapable of chemical reactions or elements. Literally the only conclusion one can draw from the "fine tuning" argument is that the universe would be different if it were different.

The higs bosom is already fine tuned with a propability of 10 to 500 to create matter. So the guy you are fighting has a very good point.

 

[TBDude65]

I see a need to explain what a scientific theory is in general. It is empiric evidence COMBINED with a model of causation.

Causation: I do not believe that electricity causes light because I can switch it on and off but because there is model of quantum mechanics explaining how electricity becomes light.

For a similar reason I am unintersted that empiric observation tell me that the physical laws do not vary inside this universe. I want a superrule that caused all this laws having exactly the values they have. If you can not give me that superule the fine tuning arguments stands and it can be extended to other complex things than life.

There is literally nothing rational or logical about your post here. You're literally telling us that confirmation bias and faith supersede facts and evidence. That's not an argument, it's an admission of a lack of one

 

[TBDude65]

The higs bosom is already fine tuned with a propability of 10 to 500 to create matter. So the guy you are fighting has a very good point.

Evidence that the Higgs particle is "fine tuned" would require independent and verifiable evidence that the designer is real. So when you prove god exists, I'll consider the "fine tuning" arguments to be possible. I'll wait

 

[LaraLara]

There is literally nothing rational or logical about your post here. You're literally telling us that confirmation bias and faith supersede facts and evidence. That's not an argument, it's an admission of a lack of one

Your entire reply is a value judgment. There is no content that can be discussed in a meaningfull manner.

I said that the values of the laws of nature can not vary is not acsientific theory. That has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

 

[lesliedellow]

By George! I think he's got it!
OB

If you think you have got it, I am afraid you haven't. What are the chances of Tower Bridge existing? Well, it would only exist if there been enough money to build it for one. That a great enough incentive had been there to build it for another.

 

[TBDude65]

Your entire reply is a value judgment. There is no content that can be discussed in a meaningfull manner.

Yes, you can't place your values in faith while simultaneously claiming to have logical reasons and evidence for your beliefs that when questioned turn out to still be faith-based arguments without evidence.

What I am saying is that you're not interested in a logical discussion about "fine tuning" because you accept it regardless of what any facts say.

 

[lesliedellow]

And the "fine tuning" argument can't and doesn't provide any logical or rational or evidence-based reason to conclude that a universe with different parameters would be incapable of chemical reactions or elements.

Like it or not, that is precisely what astrophysicists have established.

 

[TBDude65]

Like it or not, that is precisely what astrophysicists have established.

That is what some astrophysicists have hypothesized, but not concluded with any facts or evidence. It's not about liking it or not

 

[LaraLara]

Yes, you can't place your values in faith while simultaneously claiming to have logical reasons and evidence for your beliefs that when questioned turn out to still be faith-based arguments without evidence.

.

Hey ho, I am agnostic and I proposed the reason for the fine tuning could be that the universe is a matrix. You are attacking a caricature of a believer here and you posted more value judgments. Sorry I will ignore you from now on because you realy did not answer my arguments.