Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[leroy]

Interesting, where does that number come from because as far as i understand it the interaction between the higgs particle and gravity prevented the early universe from collapsing and gravity simply needed to be there, the force is not a factor.

sure but if gravity would have been stronger the universe would have collpased shortly after the big bang

 

[leroy]

Interesting. Do you have a reference for the claim about gravitation?

My apologies, I got the number wrong the correct number is 1 in 10,000

G is the least well-defined of all the constants of nature. It has been pinned down to only 1 part in 10,000, which makes it look pretty rough and ready next …

Read more: Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity fine-tuned?

 

[HonestJoe]

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life

Why this singular focus on life? There is nothing special about life (as we understand it) in the context of the universe. A different universe which didn't lead to life (or lead to life so different to our own that we wouldn't recognise it as such) would still be a valid universe.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Is this meant to be an argument for the existence of God or only an argument for the universe to have been designed by something/somethings as yet undefined?

 

[leroy]

You're not answering my question. What's the range that the gravitational constant could have been?

I don’t, know but it is not relevant ether, whether if gravity could have been different or not doesn’t affect the FT argument.

if you disagree feel free to formulate the argument. For the sake of this thread I am willing to grand any number of possibilities that you might find convenient…..please formulate your argument………ohhh wait you are an atheist, you don’t formulate arguments

To use an analogy: the odds of having 5 "ones" come up in a row depends greatly on whether you're rolling 6-sided dice, 20-sided dice, or just have the number painted on the table 5 times.

So if someone tells you that if you role the dice 1,000 times in a row and you get “6” every time you will win a price … if you happen to win the price wouldn’t you conclude that maybe the whole thing was designed for you to win?

If there is a magnet that makes “6” the only possible result , you would still conclude that somebody designed the rules (or the dice) such that you would win….at the very list you would consider that possibility.

.

Let's say for argument's sake that the parameters of the universe could have been wildly different, and the odds of life arising in this universe were very low; what does that get you?

If we're being rational about it, all it means is that life is a rare, precious accident.

If you what to affirm that the FT was an accident, feel free to do so or that an accident is a better explanation than design…. Please elaborate your argument……ohhh wait internet atheist don’t elaborate arguments.

And BTW: even if you're talking about which alternative is more likely, you're missing half the picture if you don't address the likelihood of God. I mean, you haven't even bothered to establish that God is even possible.

Sure the argument presupposes that the existence of a designer (GOD) is at least possible…….if you what to affirm that its impossible, feel free to provide your arguments……..ooohhh wait you are an atheist you don’t provide arguments.

 

[viole]

I am responding to a challenge made by @TagliatelliMonster

@TagliatelliMonster said:


So my best argument is the fine tuning argument, let’s see if you can show that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

The argument

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life


--
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.



---
I have the same view than William Lane Creig, so unless I clarify otherwise, you can assume that WLC writings and videos represent my view

---

more detail

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 1) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 2) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

------------

You can trump the argument by:

1 Showing that any of the premises is likely to be wrong

2 showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

3 showing that the universe is not FT (stawman definitions of FT are not allowed)

4 showing that there is a better explanation for FT

5 show that there is a logical fallacy

Please specify exactly what avenue are you going to use to refute the argument (explicitly choose any of the options above)

the problem with that is that any Universe is fine tuned for what it contains. Ergo, the whole argument is either question begging or tautological.

For, if we do not ascribe a-priori unjustified ontological value to things like life, atoms, etc. Then it is a truism that Universes are fine tuned for what they contain.

ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

sure but if gravity would have been stronger the universe would have collpased shortly after the big bang

No, the higgs boson was in play so at that stage gravity is not that important, then once rapid inflation started, (faster than light although light didn't exist then) no amount of gravity could hold it back. As the inflation reduced to below the speed of light gravity did help control it but there is not enough gravity to halt inflation at that stage.

 

[leroy]

No, the higgs boson was in play so at that stage gravity is not that important, then once rapid inflation started, (faster than light although light didn't exist then) no amount of gravity could hold it back. As the inflation reduced to below the speed of light gravity did help control it but there is not enough gravity to halt inflation at that stage.

So if gravity would have been stronger, the universe would have collapsed son after inflation , gravity has to be FT such that many “small” cluster of matter form all around the available space……if gravity would have been stronger all the clusters would have join to each other making a single big cluster that would later evolve in to a black hole.

Inflation simply adds a couple of new FT problems, inflation had to start and finish at a very specific point, otherwise life would have been impossible ´+ the fact that the initial entropy would have to be much smaller

 

[ChristineM]

So if gravity would have been stronger, the universe would have collapsed son after inflation , gravity has to be FT such that many “small” cluster of matter form all around the available space……if gravity would have been stronger all the clusters would have join to each other making a single big cluster that would later evolve in to a black hole.

Inflation simply adds a couple of new FT problems, inflation had to start and finish at a very specific point, otherwise life would have been impossible ´+ the fact that the initial entropy would have to be much smaller

I dont think you read what I wrote but are instead stuck on your one track solutions of god magic. There is no point in going further if you ignore higgs

 

[leroy]

I dont think you read what I wrote but are instead stuck on your one track solutions of god magic. There is no point in going further if you ignore higgs

Then elaborate your argument, how does Higgs solve the problem?................

 

[ChristineM]

Then elaborate your argument, how does Higgs solve the problem?................

Is there any point for you to ignore it.

There are plenty of papers about the higgs, feel free to educate yourself

 

[Valjean]

the problem with that is that any Universe is fine tuned for what it contains. Ergo, the whole argument is either question begging or tautological.

For, if we do not ascribe a-priori unjustified ontological value to things like life, atoms, etc. Then it is a truism that Universes are fine tuned for what they contain.

ciao

- viole

It's tautological. What the universe contains is generated by whatever configurations exist. Life fine tunes itself/evolves to fit the existing configuration.
Had there been some other sort of universe, who's to say it wouldn't have its own form of "life," totally unfamiliar to anything known to us?

 

[Heyo]

…..please formulate your argument………ohhh wait you are an atheist, you don’t formulate arguments


…. Please elaborate your argument……ohhh wait internet atheist don’t elaborate arguments.


…….if you what to affirm that its impossible, feel free to provide your arguments……..ooohhh wait you are an atheist you don’t provide arguments.

... says the internet apologist who doesn't even know what he is arguing for.

 

[viole]

It's tautological. What the universe contains is generated by whatever configurations exist. Life fine tunes itself/evolves to fit the existing configuration.
Had there been some other sort of universe, who's to say it wouldn't have its own form of "life," totally unfamiliar to anything known to us?

Well, yes, unless we beg the question that things like life deserve more explanation than the contingencies that led to it.

however, the fine tuning argument, even under the premise that life begs for an explanation, can be easily defused by a plethora of naturalistic explanations that have the same evidence.

in other words, apart from preaching to the choir, I wonder why it is still used.

ciao

- viole

 

[Valjean]

It sounds good on its face, as long as we don't look too deeply. Religious apologists rarely analyze the argument in depth, nor do the faithful whose views it confirms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, our recent ancestors didnt have tails either. Monkeys and apes split over 25 million years ago, i dont think that is covered in cladistics

Yes, but one does not evolve out of a clade. If both New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys are "monkeys" then cladistically we are too. The split between New World and Old World occurred before the split between Old World Monkeys and Apes occurred. Our ancestors were also Old World Monkeys.

 

[Subduction Zone]

or The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster just as easily

Blasphemy!!!

 

[viole]

It sounds good on its face, as long as we don't look too deeply. Religious apologists rarely analyze the argument in depth, nor do the faithful whose views it confirms.

And that is why skepticism should be used in double, or triple amount when the claim looks pleasant to us.

I mean this is human. When I read that, say, eating chocolate and drinking wine is healthy, that looks pleasant to me, since I love both chocolate and wine.

the huge fallacy would be to not use the same amount of skepticism here that I would use if someone told that either chocolate or wine are deadly.

Alas, to do that, requires a discipline that most humans do not possess. And that is the root cause of irrational beliefs, conspiracy theories, and such.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, but one does not evolve out of a clade. If both New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys are "monkeys" then cladistically we are too. The split between New World and Old World occurred before the split between Old World Monkeys and Apes occurred. Our ancestors were also Old World Monkeys.

In the same way we are cyanobacteria, everything is related

 

[Yerda]

Statistically speaking you are much more likely to in a simple universe than in a complex universe with many stars, planets galaxies etc.

You are much more likely to live in a universe with say just 1 star and 1 planet, and dream/imagine/hallucinate that you live in a complex universe with many stars.

As an analogy would if you observe yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row, then you probably are just imagining stuff.

And of course being a bolzman brain (BB) is statistically speaking even more probable, so if you think that all the observations of a complex and FT universe are just a product of chance, then you most conclude that you are a BB hallucinating all that stuff.

So you ether conclude that you are a BB or drop any chance hypothesis that you might have.

Thanks for elaborating. I'm not sure I follow the reasoning but I'll have a look into when I get a chance.

Because we are talking about multiple independent values, why would they all conspire to fall in to the life permitting range?

Well from my um, ignorant perspective, the idea that they maybe couldn't be any other way would force them to be what they are.

I'm not sure we can rule out the possibility that the parameters have to be what they are.

Anyway, I don't really know enough about this stuff to have a solid opinion. I think that premise 2 is pretty shaky though. Of course, I am an atheist and maybe I'm biased there. Conversely, I happen to have some time for William Lane Craig. He seems like an honest and intelligent chap to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the same way we are cyanobacteria, everything is related

Cyanobacteria may have been "after the split". Hard to say when one goes that far back. At best we can say we are eukaryote. Monkeys are a special case since we have two different groups and a rough date of when they split. Ultimately we are related to cyanobacteria, but we may not be in the same clade as the general clade that contains all cyanobacteria. We are in the same clade that includes all "monkeys".