The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[bhavv]

Radiation can be detected by tools. Atoms can be seen by electron microscopes.

 

[warpus]

Maybe this thread name should be changed to "The super-stubborn argument for God's existence"

 

[Plotinus]

I've watched the video. Susskind re-affirms the notion that the universe is fine-tuned on a very sharp knife's edge in order to permit life - which refutes random claims on this thread that the universe isn't fine-tuned or the fact that there is nothing remarkable about it - hilarious claims.

Then he goes on and debunks the notion that a constant such as G could only have been G, as he states G could have really been anything; there's no reason that gravity could not have been a 100 times stronger - and therefore, abolishing all life on the universe.

Finally, he states that since the evidence of fine-tuning has been established, an explanation is required, and such fine-tuning can be attributed to:

1) God
2) Luck/Accident
3) Multiverse nonsense

He goes and divulges in his theory of multiverse as I guess that's his line of work, much like a priest would have divulged into God, the afterlife, etc. The multiverse is unprovable, unobservable, and therefore, unscientific. It's no more than fiction.

The video simply re-affirmed the premise of the argument, and that's what Susskind did. The theory stuff, is just baseless speculation.

Well come on now! You introduced Susskind and posted that video (twice!) as evidence from an expert witness. You described Susskind as "a renowned professor of physics at Stanford University". But now you're backtracking and dismissing the main point he makes in that video as a "theory" that he "divulges" merely because "that's his line of work", but which is "no more than fiction". But he explains precisely why it's not "baseless speculation".

You can't have it both ways. You can't assert that Susskind "re-affirms" the things you like and "debunks" the things you don't like when you agree with him, while also dismissing what he says as "fiction" when you don't agree with him. You mock "the theory stuff", but your whole argument is all about "theory stuff" when you speculate about non-actual universes. You've never observed any universe in which the laws of physics were different, and neither has anyone else - it's purely theoretical!

You also can't say "The multiverse is unprovable, unobservable, and therefore, unscientific. It's no more than fiction" when exactly the same thing is true of God. You've said yourself in this thread that God is unprovable and unobservable and, necessarily, cannot be perceived or detected by scientific instruments. I think, as it happens, that your reasons for saying this are weak, and you're actually making your case worse than it needs to be, but whatever. If being "unprovable" and "unobservable" makes a hypothesis "unscientific" then theism is unscientific, and if being unscientific makes a claim fiction, then theism is fiction. That's by your standards. You can't have it both ways. If the multiverse, and for that matter the string theory that Susskind thinks supports it, is merely "baseless speculation", why isn't that the case with God?

You've cited a lot of scientists in this thread, of varying respectability (I can't believe no-one has picked up on your apparent endorsement at the start of the thread of crackpot Frank Tipler, whose views are in any case wildly divergent from classical theism, and from much of your own views as given in this thread), and you've mocked your opponents for, as you see it, refusing to agree with them about the cosmological constant. So to turn your own criticisms back against you: why should we believe you on the scientific respectability of the multiverse, and not Leonard Susskind, who is one of the foremost theoretical physicists in the world? What makes you right and him wrong? If you're so certain that his theories are "baseless speculation", what papers have you published in professional journals explaining this to the scientific community? Because anyone able to refute a current theory so definitively would certainly have no difficulty publishing that refutation.

 

[Mise]

Reading this 14 page thread in one sitting was fantastic - both entertaining and informative. Thanks especially to Plotinus, but also El Mac, Phrox, uppi, Perfection, and everyone else who's been posting and explaining things in so many different ways that it's basically impossible not to come out of it with a better understanding than when I went in.

I've learnt a hell of a lot from this thread.

 

[Borachio]

Maybe this thread name should be changed to "The super-stubborn argument for God's existence"

You've got to hand it to Mr Corny: he is super-stubborn. (And also inconsistent.) I'd have given up long, long ago.

 

[warpus]

The good thing, like Mise said, is that we're all actually learning something here. Or at least some of us are. So the thread is not a waste.

 

[Funky]

And design is the most simple explanation for that fact, if you don't have atheistic prejudice.

Sorry for picking out your post again, but I wanted to comment on this because it's a common misconception that results from the use of the word "atheist". I often try to avoid this label alltogether because of the problems it poses to discussions like this. As I have said before in this thread, atheism is a response to a single issue, namely whether or not a god exists. There are no tenets, no dogma, no prejudice. I am an atheist because theistic claims so far haven't met their burden of proof. The evidence brought up to show that a god exists has not convinced me. Therefore I am without theism, an a-theist. That doesn't say anything else about me at all.

And it doesn't mean I am on principle closed to the possibility of a divine creator or other supernatural things. I remain open to everything, provided sufficient evidence. And why would I not? However, if I had to label myself, I'd be a skeptic. Which means I am skeptical of every claim which is not supported by evidence. And, as Carl Sagan pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of a supernatural being that exists outside of space and time is an exceptionally extraordinary claim. The mere notion of something, let alone an intelligent being, existing outside of space and time contradicts everything we know about how the universe. What could it even mean for something to exist outside of space and time? Isn't existence per definition bound to spacial and temporal restraints? Now if enough evidence was brought to the table to suggest that a god does exist, I'd be the first to accept it and admit I was wrong. But it would have to be pretty good evidence, certainly a lot better than hearsay from the desert written down 2.000 years ago.

 

[Tigranes]

We're 250 posts into the thread and even if Unicorny is absolutely right about a fine-tuned universe, that does not in any way prove God's existence, which people like William Lane Craig and other Christian apologists are desperate to do.

We are not just 250 posts into the thread, we are 15 years into the 21 century and you are still oblivious to a simple fact: what proof? How can you possibly demand proof about things that by definition require faith, while you cannot even prove things that require knowledge, such as any scientific theory. By definition, theories are the best current explanations supported by experimental evidence that scientists have to offer. All of our current understanding of scientific phenomena is theoretical and could be revised in a heartbeat if commendable and repeatable evidence falsifies it and supports a new theory. Same with scientific hypothesis. No amount of experimental evidence or testing can prove a hypothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt. A hypothesis gains credibility from positive data that support it.

Fine tuning=experimental evidence.

Does it support (NOT PROVE) Multiverse doctrine? No.
Does it support Intelligent Design? Yes.

Multiverse doctrine was invented by scared atheists in part of because the experimental evidence of fine tuning.

On the contrary fine tuning argument came to support the idea of intelligent design that predates any science.

The moment someone proves the existence of God -- he has to die. "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"

Evidence, such as fine tuning, corners you with a moral dilemma. What would you rather believe: design, for which you have positive evidence or blind chance/multiverse doctrine, which was suggested in part because of atheistic prejudice, and not because of positive data that support it.

 

[warpus]

The moment someone proves the existence of God -- he has to die. "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"

To put such limits on God just so that you can make it so it's impossible to prove his existence..

I see that as a decent strategy, I suppose, but a highly silly one.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, the multiverse hypothesis was generated using the principles similar to what debunked the last Design argument, Paley's Eye.

We have one system of investigation, building quantum computers and probing the beginning of the universe. We have another system, which seems to think the Moses myths have enough grounding in fact that it's worth quoting them to describe God.

Luckily, the first system is disproving the libel towards the creator constantly taught by the adherents to the second system.

I think you'll find that History is going to be increasingly on our side.

 

[Tigranes]

I see that as a decent strategy, I suppose, but a highly silly one.

Let's leave God alone, for a moment. What about silly electron? In which state is it? The moment you conduct an inquiry -- you only measure the state you just created by your measurement, and never the actual state which existed prior to your measurement. It is impossible to "see" the electron without "killing" it first (passing it to one state from another)

 

[warpus]

That's an observation alright. You've got it wrong, but I do have to admit you've made an observation.

I just don't see how it's relevant to anything you quoted or what's being discussed.

 

[trader/warrior]

Evidence, such as fine tuning, corners you with a moral dilemma. What would you rather believe: design, for which you have positive evidence or blind chance/multiverse doctrine, which was suggested in part because of atheistic prejudice, and not because of positive data that support it.

Why is it a moral dilemma and why do I have to choose to believe either one of those?

We don't know how or why the creation of the universe happended or how existence can exist, and that is a fact.

I hardly see how fine-tuning is that supportive of design anyway, if we are using these "supra-universe" concepts like multiverses or god you could get fine-tuning by lots of conceivable mechanisms, but it just pushes the real question of existence further back. Besides, God would be quite "fine-tuned" wouldn't he? How did he appear by random chance?

 

[Tigranes]

I think you'll find that History is going to be increasingly on our side.

It was Roman Catholic priest Georges LeMaitre who interpreted the redshift as proof of universal expansion and thus a Big Bang. "In the beginning..." Wouldn't you feel safer, as an atheist, if science could suggest that Universe had no beginning? You could stop reading Gospel and Genesis after the first three words.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, even the first sentence is wrong in Genesis, unless we mean 'beginning' as '7+ billion years later!'.

It becomes easier with Logos, I'll grant. Then God decided to eventually make fruits on the 3rd day, and then (on his fourth day) decided to make oceanic life millions of years earlier.

If we do that, then the provably false history in Genesis probably doesn't start until around Chapter 6, but the Abrahamics will continue to slander the Creator there, too.

But, Tigraines, our visible universe having a beginning isn't a struggle for atheists. Upthread, I acknowledged that dissonance regarding the UnCaused Cause was natural, since it's a bit of a paradox to our intuitions. It's not like we're the ones forming wild ideas, assigning additional traits to the UC.

Time and again, we've been shown that simple natural forces can be used to explain what previously confounded us. Newton thought angels were necessary to explain some planetary movements. Paley thought eyes needed to be designed. Modern people think that universal constants needed magic to happen.

Sure, way back in the distance is the paradoxical UnCaused Cause. But assuming it's the most proximate explanation for the latest mystery is hardly the way to go.

 

[Arakhor]

How can you possibly demand proof about things that by definition require faith, while you cannot even prove things that require knowledge, such as any scientific theory.

I'm not the one insisting that a silly thought exercise proves the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God. I think you are quite mistaken about where I'm coming from on this topic.

Multiverse doctrine was invented by scared atheists in part of because the experimental evidence of fine tuning.

That's your prejudices speaking, not anyone else's.

The moment someone proves the existence of God -- he has to die. "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"

I can prove various concepts, particularly in mathematics, without ever needing to meet them face to face. You must have a dreadfully limited concept of God if you cannot believe in him without first meeting him.

Evidence, such as fine tuning, corners you with a moral dilemma. What would you rather believe: design, for which you have positive evidence or blind chance/multiverse doctrine, which was suggested in part because of atheistic prejudice, and not because of positive data that support it.

Since you asked, I'd rather believe that God created the universe according to the natural laws that appear to be set down in every molecule in existence and according to prevailing scientific theory, because that causes the least fuss and doesn't require either a deceitful God, an evil scientific conspiracy or farcical 'debates' like this one.

 

[Tigranes]

Why is it a moral dilemma and why do I have to choose to believe either one of those?

Because it makes you who you are. Do you see yourself as a child of an unholy blind chance, or a child of the Holy God. Are you to define your own right or wrong, or to seek objective right and wrong.

As for "why you have to chose" -- such is the nature of things. Darkness is absence of light, not presence of darkness. Suppose you have an eating disorder and someone tells you -- you have a choice: to eat or not to eat. By refusing to consider the choice you are choosing not to eat.

 

[warpus]

Choose Steve; we are all his children.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ya, infinite leap between "the universe was created this way intentionally" and "people were an intentional creation".

 

[Tigranes]

I can prove various concepts, particularly in mathematics, without ever needing to meet them face to face. You must have a dreadfully limited concept of God if you cannot believe in him without first meeting him.
.

Concepts are not living things, and proving is not believing.

Yes, you can discover Neptune on paper first, analysing Uranus' orbit and then predict where to look for it and then discover it armed with that derivation.

But God is not His creation. You can recognize the robot you have created, but your robot cannot recognize you as your maker, unless you want him to and update his software accordingly.