Why do Atheists not want to consider FineTuning ?

[FredVB]

This universe has a number of parameters that are constants for all of it, they are not ever known to be any different, anywhere, but there is no explanation for what value they are, as they are independent of other things in the universe. If any of several of them had been just slightly different, it would not be a universe that could have any life, as our own, surviving in it, the universe depending on which way there would be very slight difference might have quickly dissipated or quickly collapsed right after the big bang that they talk about. There is indeed no evidence there are any other universes, but without admitting there is intelligence that is behind these constants set as they are, the universe needing them not being an explanation itself, they are forced to talk of there being others with this the one out of multitudes that works with us and anything living possible in it.

This goes right to my point. You cannot demonstrate in a scientific or mathematical way that universal constants are fine tuned. Nobody has observed another universe, so you don't know probability distributions of these supposed fine tuned values across other fine tuned and not-fine tuned universes.

The fine tuning argument is based on intuition - the universe looks like it might be fine tuned. But when asked how you know that it's fine tuned, there is no reason that can be given other than it has the appearance of being fine tuned. Intuition serves a pragmatic purpose, but it doesn't equate to proof. Intuition can be right, but it can also be, and often is, wrong.

This misses my point. It can be said there is an appearance of the universe being fine-tuned. Intuition can lead us to say that it is. But if it isn't, the only other choice left to you to explain it, with it then being such an overwhelming fluke, not to mention so much of provisions for us otherwise, is with there being a multiverse of multitudes of other universes with just this one working with what is set right for it, as scientists are now saying, with no evidence whatsoever for that, just in excluding God intelligently designing our universe, because it is just too overwhelmingly unlikely otherwise. If our intuition leads to say it is God, it would be right.

 

[Yekcidmij]

This misses my point. It can be said there is an appearance of the universe being fine-tuned. Intuition can lead us to say that it is. But if it isn't, the only other choice left to you to explain it, with it then being such an overwhelming fluke, not to mention so much of provisions for us otherwise, is with there being a multiverse of multitudes of other universes with just this one working with what is set right for it, as scientists are now saying, with no evidence whatsoever for that, just in excluding God intelligently designing our universe, because it is just too overwhelmingly unlikely otherwise. If our intuition leads to say it is God, it would be right.

There is another choice. Using current scientific and mathematical methods, the appropriate response is to say you just don't know. There is no way to draw conclusions or make probabilistic judgements from existing evidence.

 

[FredVB]

There is another choice. Using current scientific and mathematical methods, the appropriate response is to say you just don't know. There is no way to draw conclusions or make probabilistic judgements from existing evidence.

It is not just not knowing, but not even knowing what other explanation can be given, there is no other that can be imagined. Though you have displayed with your name that you are. Christian and Calvinist, and there are Christian looking symbols there, the communication is much like what would be from what amounts to being agnostic. And existing evidence is too summarily dismissed.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It is not just not knowing, but not even knowing what other explanation can be given, there is no other that can be imagined.

It's easy to imagine possibilities. Other explanations can be given, but they cannot be proven either since our sample size has only 1 observable; we have no scientific or mathematical way of knowing what the sample space is. We have no idea what probability distributions are across fine tuned and/or non fine tuned universes.

And this isn't a scenario where we accept your reasoning by default if we don't come up with a better one.

Though you have displayed with your name that you are. Christian and Calvinist, and there are Christian looking symbols there, the communication is much like what would be from what amounts to being agnostic.

What is the relevance of this? You should probably deal with my points and arguments rather than giving ad hominem comebacks. My point is simply that fine tuning arguments for God's existence aren't very good arguments; they rest on appeal to intuition. My point was not, as you seem to think, that God doesn't exist. Am I required to think that all arguments in support of God's existence are good arguments? Am I allowed to think that there may be some terrible one's in use?

Forming beliefs from intuition isn't necessarily wrong or irrational or anything either. It serves a very useful function in our normal operating states. We normally form beliefs and take action based on our intuition and our intuition may even be right more than wrong. But it's still bad argumentation to appeal to intuition as proof; it's subjective. Your intuition is formed from your unique experiences and the unique experience of those around you. Your intuition is probably different from my intuition in many ways. Why should anyone believe your intuition over their own?

My observational experience says that intuition is often wrong, especially when it comes to things that are abstract and/or complex in their nature and especially when they involve a sample size of 1 and a potential enormous host of unobserved counterfactuals. Intuition regarding things like this makes for bad argument, and this is probably why a lot of atheists think it's not convincing. It's why I think it's a terrible argument that could set people up for disappointment down the road when they start thinking critically about reasons they found convincing at one time in their lives. Why not just be honest from the start and say "Yea, I'm a Christian, but I realize this is a bad argument?"

I think belief in God is axiomatic in nature. Your appeal to intuition is a prime example of what this axiomatic belief looks like in application. You take for granted that God exists and think other people can just see it how you do. Given belief in God, of course it's easy to see that the universe is designed. But remove this axiom and it's not easy to see and it's impossible to prove. Belief in God requires a complete change in worldview, not simply deductive argument.

And existing evidence is too summarily dismissed.

It was dismissed for good reason - we have no idea that the data you present is evidence in support of your hypothesis. Or maybe you can demonstrate how we know that the data you present is evidence in support of your hypothesis?

 

[ywl]

The so called “evidence” that “prove” God exists like this list just says that there is no way around, or science cannot explain this so God has to be the answer.


The list is not scientific. You need to show where the list comes from. Why cannot we add or remove some items in it? How you determined the ‘p’? Are the things in the list correlated?


Assuming your list is all good. Such kind of proof is still weak. What if someday, science discoveries changed the probabilities in your list? Just think about how many things we believed impossible become possible by new science and technology!


The trend is that science is going up and religions are standing where they were 2000 years ago and probably back step once in a while. Isn’t it more rational to believe in science (solid and very promising) instead of religion (full of things hard to believe and old).


Now, the problem is whether the world is created by God or from some other sources. We can see the inability of science to give a full answer for now. But science is trying to answer that question. There are giant telescopes on earth and in space. New data is obtained every second. Your list would probably become obsolete 10 or 100 years later.


However, science has its Achilles' heel. Things happen with a certain probability from scientific point of view. So if we multiply the probabilities in the list together, (it is a good list in fact) we get a number very close to zero. But this doesn’t mean that it is hard to form such a world, because we have almost infinite of trials happening. So anything - even though the chance is small, multiply an infinitely large number of trials - can happen. Now it is science’s job to find out what the probability really is and how many trials has been done. See whether the chance is smaller or the number of trials is bigger. This is where we are right now.


The development of science has slowed down. There are no signs that science is anywhere close to get accurate estimations on the things in the list. Personally, I believe this is and will be the situation forever.
The argument between science and God is like whether you believe everything happens by chance or by the purposeful work of God. The benefit of believing in God is that you can have possibility of getting eternal life, even though it is zero in the view of atheist, but we believers believe it is not zero, so we have hope. The benefit of believe in science alone is that you don’t believe in hell or heaven and do whatever you want when alive. I do see good reasons to choose either one.


From my experience, God will give signs to those who seek him or who he seeks. That’s how I explain why I believe in God. I believe that God showed me a sign when I asked for it and I even took a picture of it. But when I showed it to an atheist, he just said that ‘it is just a small chance thing that happened to you’. He used exactly the probability argument, powerball always has winners, it doesn’t make God more real when that happens to you. (The sign I got has nothing to do with real benefits like money etc. I think it is great, because no one can say that I trust God because I got benefits from him, which implies I may not trust him if I did not get the benefit or get bad things happen to me. Right, no one will ask for bad things happen to oneself.)

It is really shocking to me that, at last, the first verse in Bible makes me believe in it. ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (universe, everything).’

 

[FredVB]

It's easy to imagine possibilities. Other explanations can be given, but they cannot be proven either since our sample size has only 1 observable; we have no scientific or mathematical way of knowing what the sample space is. We have no idea what probability distributions are across fine tuned and/or non fine tuned universes.

And this isn't a scenario where we accept your reasoning by default if we don't come up with a better one.

What is the relevance of this? You should probably deal with my points and arguments rather than giving ad hominem comebacks. My point is simply that fine tuning arguments for God's existence aren't very good arguments; they rest on appeal to intuition. My point was not, as you seem to think, that God doesn't exist. Am I required to think that all arguments in support of God's existence are good arguments? Am I allowed to think that there may be some terrible one's in use?

Forming beliefs from intuition isn't necessarily wrong or irrational or anything either. It serves a very useful function in our normal operating states. We normally form beliefs and take action based on our intuition and our intuition may even be right more than wrong. But it's still bad argumentation to appeal to intuition as proof; it's subjective. Your intuition is formed from your unique experiences and the unique experience of those around you. Your intuition is probably different from my intuition in many ways. Why should anyone believe your intuition over their own?

My observational experience says that intuition is often wrong, especially when it comes to things that are abstract and/or complex in their nature and especially when they involve a sample size of 1 and a potential enormous host of unobserved counterfactuals. Intuition regarding things like this makes for bad argument, and this is probably why a lot of atheists think it's not convincing. It's why I think it's a terrible argument that could set people up for disappointment down the road when they start thinking critically about reasons they found convincing at one time in their lives. Why not just be honest from the start and say "Yea, I'm a Christian, but I realize this is a bad argument?"

I think belief in God is axiomatic in nature. Your appeal to intuition is a prime example of what this axiomatic belief looks like in application. You take for granted that God exists and think other people can just see it how you do. Given belief in God, of course it's easy to see that the universe is designed. But remove this axiom and it's not easy to see and it's impossible to prove. Belief in God requires a complete change in worldview, not simply deductive argument.

It was dismissed for good reason - we have no idea that the data you present is evidence in support of your hypothesis. Or maybe you can demonstrate how we know that the data you present is evidence in support of your hypothesis?

There is nothing ad hominem with my saying "the communication is much like what would be from what amounts to being agnostic", it was worded to avoid saying a conclusion personally about you. But believing that there is no evidence of God or the design that is from God is very much the position defining agnostics.

There are no other universes. But the independent constants of our universe are known, and scientists understand what would be different if any one of those independent constants was at any different value. That is a basis without another universe needing to be known.

ywl said "we have almost infinite of trials happening. So anything - even though the chance is small, multiply an infinitely large number of trials - can happen". There is no convincing evidence of infinity of trials or "almost infinite", and nothing is explained where explanation is claimed to be there.

Why would we have intelligence to communicate, even about these things needing a lot of knowledge? Where would all this intelligence come from?

As a Christian, I do know.

 

[ywl]

Just one example of big number of trials of forming a planet like earth.
According to Extrasolar planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it is estimated that 144billion earth sized planet is in Milky Way galaxy.
Another page Galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"There are probably more than 170 billion (1.7 × 1011) galaxies in the observable universe."

These numbers multiply together are what I called almost infinity. But like I said, all these estimates are very coarse but people are trying to make it more and more accurate. Maybe these evidence will get convincing someday.

ywl said "we have almost infinite of trials happening. So anything - even though the chance is small, multiply an infinitely large number of trials - can happen". There is no convincing evidence of infinity of trials or "almost infinite", and nothing is explained where explanation is claimed to be there.

 

[Yekcidmij]

There is nothing ad hominem with my saying "the communication is much like what would be from what amounts to being agnostic", it was worded to avoid saying a conclusion personally about you. But believing that there is no evidence of God or the design that is from God is very much the position defining agnostics.

This has nothing to do with the discussion and yet you continue to bring it up. Why? If you want to accuse me of not being a theist, just say it. It still won't have any relevance to the points brought up though.

There are no other universes.

How do you know that?

But the independent constants of our universe are known, and scientists understand what would be different if any one of those independent constants was at any different value.

Why think these "constants" could be anything other than what they are?

 

[FredVB]

Just one example of big number of trials of forming a planet like earth.
According to Extrasolar planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it is estimated that 144billion earth sized planet is in Milky Way galaxy.
Another page Galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"There are probably more than 170 billion (1.7 × 1011) galaxies in the observable universe."

These numbers multiply together are what I called almost infinity. But like I said, all these estimates are very coarse but people are trying to make it more and more accurate. Maybe these evidence will get convincing someday.

The numbers are very coarse indeed, the numbers are not even known at all, they are guessed at from extrapolating. Even if we conclude they are right, none of this would be that way for a universe that we or any life could exist without those constants being set very much as they are.

This has nothing to do with the discussion and yet you continue to bring it up. Why? If you want to accuse me of not being a theist, just say it. It still won't have any relevance to the points brought up though.

How do you know that?

Why think these "constants" could be anything other than what they are?

Pay attention to this statement. I am not saying what you personally, Yekcidmij, believe, I certainly do not know. Otherwise I speak of "you" in a more general sense.

Statements were given that have a correspondence with things an agnostic might say, and it does have something to do with discussion on God fine-tuning the universe, as things are dismissed by such.

I say there are no other universes to have it clear that they are not needed to explain the perceived fine-tuned universe, but multitudes of other universes are appealed to to explain that with avoiding the acknowledgement of the intelligent design. Of course I do not know there are not others, but that they do not need to be appealed to without any evidence to explain things. After all, I think of heaven as being outside of our universe.

What is to be said of the constants is that they are independent, there is not a reason from physics, known or not understood, that they should be what they are for life to be, at other values life would never be, yet the constants are all at such values. And no other explanation can be given, there is not even a suggestion, you cannot do it, other than design intelligently from the supreme being, or without that multitudes of universes with this the one that worked, with no evidence for any other universe. But there is more evidence for God.

So how do you not believe God is there? Nothing existing is explained then and nothing really can be. Not only everything of the universe would be fine-tuned to come from a big bang, which still needs the explanation, for everything including us as we are to be here, such that some researchers theorize myriads of parallel universes to explain ours with it the one that works out, without any evidence whatsoever but for that, but it goes way beyond that, with evidence of being our being abundantly provided for, and many amazing incidents of providence from Yahweh. And there is Jesus Christ, with his living perfectly, unparalleled insight, miracles, and what he said, including of his death, burial, and resurrection, with amazing testimony of unlikely disciples and the empty tomb that cannot otherwise be explained.

I of course want personal experience to be included in evidence for us of Yahweh's presence. That is not by itself enough to impress one who chooses not to believe God is there, but with the other bases of his presence as stated, there is a special kind of growth that corresponds to what is described about spiritual growth in the Bible, and personally feeling his presence among those of us in relationship with him is to be expected, and with drawing close to him, it does happen, it may be explained as due to other things, but with all the evidence for God and the gospel of Christ, the closeness we perceive of God is to be expected and with our drawing to him in Christ his presence is always sensed.

 

[lesliedellow]

This question almost answers itself. They don't want to consider it because they are atheists. Hypothesising a multiverse is the usual escape route.

 

[ywl]

No matter how coarse the numbers are, even though they are obtained by extrapolating, there are solid evidences (data). People believe what is measured by instruments more than they believe in themselves. These data are infallible and totally objective. The foundation of science are accurate measurements, errors are listed too. The only evidence for religion are old books that are written by men, who make mistakes all the time. This is what common atheist think.

I really think people need strong faith to believe in God if people all have good science background. But like I said, science cannot prove God doesn't exist. In fact, new science continiully disprove "evidences" showing God doesn't exist. On the other hand, intensive research are also done on Bible, it may be the most well preserved old book. So it is also very reasonable to believe in God.

The numbers are very coarse indeed, the numbers are not even known at all, they are guessed at from extrapolating. Even if we conclude they are right, none of this would be that way for a universe that we or any life could exist without those constants being set very much as they are.



Pay attention to this statement. I am not saying what you personally, Yekcidmij, believe, I certainly do not know. Otherwise I speak of "you" in a more general sense.

Statements were given that have a correspondence with things an agnostic might say, and it does have something to do with discussion on God fine-tuning the universe, as things are dismissed by such.

I say there are no other universes to have it clear that they are not needed to explain the perceived fine-tuned universe, but multitudes of other universes are appealed to to explain that with avoiding the acknowledgement of the intelligent design. Of course I do not know there are not others, but that they do not need to be appealed to without any evidence to explain things. After all, I think of heaven as being outside of our universe.

What is to be said of the constants is that they are independent, there is not a reason from physics, known or not understood, that they should be what they are for life to be, at other values life would never be, yet the constants are all at such values. And no other explanation can be given, there is not even a suggestion, you cannot do it, other than design intelligently from the supreme being, or without that multitudes of universes with this the one that worked, with no evidence for any other universe. But there is more evidence for God.

So how do you not believe God is there? Nothing existing is explained then and nothing really can be. Not only everything of the universe would be fine-tuned to come from a big bang, which still needs the explanation, for everything including us as we are to be here, such that some researchers theorize myriads of parallel universes to explain ours with it the one that works out, without any evidence whatsoever but for that, but it goes way beyond that, with evidence of being our being abundantly provided for, and many amazing incidents of providence from Yahweh. And there is Jesus Christ, with his living perfectly, unparalleled insight, miracles, and what he said, including of his death, burial, and resurrection, with amazing testimony of unlikely disciples and the empty tomb that cannot otherwise be explained.

I of course want personal experience to be included in evidence for us of Yahweh's presence. That is not by itself enough to impress one who chooses not to believe God is there, but with the other bases of his presence as stated, there is a special kind of growth that corresponds to what is described about spiritual growth in the Bible, and personally feeling his presence among those of us in relationship with him is to be expected, and with drawing close to him, it does happen, it may be explained as due to other things, but with all the evidence for God and the gospel of Christ, the closeness we perceive of God is to be expected and with our drawing to him in Christ his presence is always sensed.

 

[FredVB]

No matter how coarse the numbers are, even though they are obtained by extrapolating, there are solid evidences (data). People believe what is measured by instruments more than they believe in themselves. These data are infallible and totally objective. The foundation of science are accurate measurements, errors are listed too. The only evidence for religion are old books that are written by men, who make mistakes all the time. This is what common atheist think.

I really think people need strong faith to believe in God if people all have good science background. But like I said, science cannot prove God doesn't exist. In fact, new science continiully disprove "evidences" showing God doesn't exist. On the other hand, intensive research are also done on Bible, it may be the most well preserved old book. So it is also very reasonable to believe in God.

Even though there is data there is nothing establishing an almost infinite amount of opportunities for what there is, without explanation for itself, to look like all that God provides for us. The evidence for revelation from him is indeed very convincing, it involves a whole other discussion.

 

[variant]

For everything after "there is a universe and it has constants":

The universe is REALLY BIG. It is unsurprising that we find ourselves in a part of the universe that supports us, it is quite impossible for that not to be the case.

For physical fine tuning in the universe. IE why there are universal constants:

Because we don't know why the constants are what they are (it is one thing in the world that there isn't a single expert on) and a multi-verse, or God are certainly not the only possible reasons.

One of the great unsolved problems in physics is that If you took the numbers from quantum mechanics and used them to predict just one of the constants (the cosmological constant) they were off by over a hundred orders of magnitude. Clearly we've not quite grasped the problem with both hands.

So, you want to take an idea from theoretical physics that is quite nearly speculation at this point and use it to bolster your theism?

Go right ahead. No one is stopping you.

 

[JGG]

I will repost this: Yes, its very fascinating. The part you neglect to put forth why this should make me conclude that there is a God, much less a perfect, personal one.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Fine-tuned universe? - YouTube

 

[JGG]

Fine-tuned universe? - YouTube

Well, I think the only conclusion we can arrive at is that God loves blackholes!

 

[biggles53]

Said the puddle....."Isn't it simply amazing that this hole has been so finely shaped to fit me exactly.....surely there must be a god....!!"

 

[Lord Emsworth]

As soon as I see an explanation for these 'gaps' that are

(a) simple enough for the average theist to understand
(b) elaborate enough to actually explain things
(c) involve "God" in a meaningful way​

I might consider FTA or whatever God-of-the-Gaps argument have you.

And as that is not going to happen ... I'll just consider what I see:
People who have absolutely no clue about fine tuning constants etc pp suffering from the illusion that they somehow knew something.

And that is simply not good enough as an argument for the existence of God. To the contrary. God-of-the-Gaps belief looks like this to me:

"The fine tuning [about which the average theist knows nothing] of the universe [about which the average theist knows nothing either] is what it is, because there is something [which is totally beyond our conception] that does something [in a way that is totally beyond our conception] in order to accomplish something [which we don't know]. And what do atheists make of this, huh?"

And ... Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather be a mystic than a God-of-the-Gapper.

 

[Strathos]

Said the puddle....."Isn't it simply amazing that this hole has been so finely shaped to fit me exactly.....surely there must be a god....!!"

If you imply that life could evolve in any conditions as long as it evolves to fit the environment, why is earth the only planet with life in the solar system?

 

[pgp_protector]

If you imply that life could evolve in any conditions as long as it evolves to fit the environment, why is earth the only planet with life in the solar system?

it it?
I didn't realize that it has been Verified that their is No life anywhere else in the solar system.