The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Borachio]

If we look at the specific foundations of different religions, the bible or the Koran say, there is not much to be found that would pass as "true" in light of all the knowledge we have acquired up to the 21st century. That religion often gets credited for its wisdom on certain issues, such as spirituality or ethics, has to do with the fact that over the centuries these endeavours have been viewed through the lense of religious convictions. Ironically, this actually supports my argument, since by overcoming religious dogma, we would break the monopoly that religion has on these matters that are so important to us and allow us to research them openly and unbiased.
There is no doubt that religion has some benefits, like providing community systems. But there is no reason why we can't keep the good stuff that has proven to be beneficial for society, and discard the dogmatic baggage. All I am advocating is that there is no reason to believe anything on bad evidence.

Hmm. I'm really not sure that the Bible counts as the foundation of Christianity, though. The NT wasn't committed to paper until at least a generation after Jesus.

I guess you could make a case for the OT being the foundation of Judaism, but only in a way, because it seems to put a premium on ancient texts in themselves, irrespective of their actual content.

The Koran seems more clearly like a foundation, it having allegedly been written down verbatim from dictation by the Angel Gabriel.

Anyway, religions simply don't stay put (which must annoy the heck out of fundamentalists). And I really think we need to distinguish between the mystical cores of religions, and their expression in the wider society through doctrine, ritual, and dietary rules and the like. The former may, or may not, have a value; but the latter is completely spurious, and not only can be safely ignored, imo, it should be.

Come to think of it, you seem to be saying much the same thing.

 

[Plotinus]

Church of England has vicars. Catholics have priests. Methodists, and other non-aligned denominations, have ministers.

It's more complicated than that (and I really don't care to know how much more complicated - it's completely arbitrary, to my way of thinking about it). You can have C of E rectors, as well, but they're less common.

That's not quite accurate - the Church of England has priests. "Vicar" and "rector" (and others, such as "curate", "archdeacon", "bishop", etc.) are particular roles that a priest might do. You can think of them as jobs, while being a priest is a qualification. E.g. my father is an Anglican priest. For a while he was a vicar, but now he isn't - he's just a priest.

The complicating factor is that some Anglicans of a more evangelical persuasion don't like the idea of priests and don't use that terminology, even if they are priests. They are more likely to call themselves ministers.

 

[Cheetah]

On-topic: I found this nice little blog post which talk about the fundamental constants in our universe: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/throwback-thursday-the-fundamental-constants-behind-our-universe-a95de09f9a46

[...]

And so that’s where we are today.

We don’t yet know where the values of these constants come from, or whether that’s something that will ever be known with the information available in our Universe. Some people chalk them up to anthropics or appeal to the multiverse; I haven’t given up on our Universe just yet, though!

Our journey through the cosmos continues, and there’s so much more still to learn.

 

[timtofly]

I don't understand. How has Mr Funky not put the words in quotes? He directly quotes from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.

Is the act of marriage now considered rape? I already agreed with him that the Hebrews were allowed to own foreigners as property.

 

[classical_hero]

Hmm. I'm really not sure that the Bible counts as the foundation of Christianity, though. The NT wasn't committed to paper until at least a generation after Jesus.

The first book of the NT is only a bit over a decade after the death of Jesus. All the books of the NT had witnesses of those who live at the Jesus was around so they had knowledge of Jesus. Anyway by the 2nd Century we already had the complete Bible that if we lost all the manuscripts of the Bible we could go back to what the disciple's disciples said and still be able to know what the Bible teaches, since they intimate knowledge of those close to Jesus.

 

[Tigranes]

And so that’s where we are today.

We don’t yet know where the values of these constants come from, or whether that’s something that will ever be known with the information available in our Universe. Some people chalk them up to anthropics or appeal to the multiverse; I haven’t given up on our Universe just yet, though!

Our journey through the cosmos continues, and there’s so much more still to learn.

I just love this quote. Every time I have debate with sceptics here -- they simply dazzle me with their contradictory attitude. They claim they have lack of belief with religious zeal. They appeal to reason by diluting it to the point that nothing really matters or stands true. If you people possess even a shred of intellectual honesty -- there is only one word to describe our perception of reality: limited. The more you know the more you know there are things you don't know yet, and there are even more things you don't know you don't know about.

I would really love to continue this debate with anyone who is honest enough to admit: I am limited. My senses are limited, my reason is limited, my morality is limited. And everything I know that I know so far is limited as well.

 

[Arakhor]

I would really love to continue this debate with anyone who is honest enough to admit: I am limited. My senses are limited, my reason is limited, my morality is limited. And everything I know that I know so far is limited as well.

Morality has nothing to do with it, but otherwise most scientists and men of reason would agree with that. It's generally only men of faith, so to speak, that impute equal measures of dogmatism in the "other side".

 

[Borachio]

I would really love to continue this debate with anyone who is honest enough to admit: I am limited. My senses are limited, my reason is limited, my morality is limited non-existent. And everything I know that I know so far is limited as well.

My fallibility is a central tenet of mine.

The trouble is, though, I expect people I debate with to have the same tenet. And they very seldom do.

And in fact, I don't think I know anything. And it may be true that there are some things that I do know but I don't know that I know them. (The unknown knowns.)

It's a simple fact of my experience that very few people are this skeptical.

Most people say things like "Unknown knowns? What on earth is he on about now?" *backing away slowly* *looking for a handy weapon*

 

[Plotinus]

I just love this quote. Every time I have debate with sceptics here -- they simply dazzle me with their contradictory attitude. They claim they have lack of belief with religious zeal. They appeal to reason by diluting it to the point that nothing really matters or stands true. If you people possess even a shred of intellectual honesty -- there is only one word to describe our perception of reality: limited. The more you know the more you know there are things you don't know yet, and there are even more things you don't know you don't know about.

So then, what's the contradictory attitude? It's the proponents of the fine-tuning argument who think that we know enough about the universe, and enough about the probabilities of the various constants being what they are, and enough about the nature of order and chaos, to be able to conclude that there must be an intelligent designer behind the universe. The essence of the various objections to this argument is that we don't know enough about these things to be able to draw such a strong (and remarkable) conclusion. That doesn't mean we can equally dogmatically claim that God doesn't exist (at least, not on the basis of this), but it does mean that these grounds for believing that he does are undermined. There's nothing contradictory about that.

 

[uppi]

My senses are limited, my reason is limited, my morality is limited. And everything I know that I know so far is limited as well.

I happily admit that. But this admittance has consequences: I assume this about everyone else as well. That means I will dismiss anybody who claims to have found The Truth (TM), because nobody would be able to grasp that.

For this topic in particular, I assume that nobody knows the meta-laws of the universe, i.e. the laws that generate the laws of our universe. And nobody has shown any method how we even could know them. As long as that assumption stands, any fine-tuning argument for anything but the shortcomings of a theory cannot make sense.

However, that does not mean that I know nothing. And if people make statements that I know to be wrong (usually definite statements about the meaning of quantum mechanics), I will call them out on those.

 

[Tigranes]

So then, what's the contradictory attitude?

I can tell you exactly what is contradictory. The very fact that chance somehow is at odds with the intelligent design. As Pushkin puts it "chance is the mighty instantaneous weapon of the Providence". How can Multiverse doctrine possibly dissuade our faith in Unlimited Omnipotent Intelligent Designer, by making the whole picture even more complex? One does not to need to go outside of the Universe in search of other Multiverses to evidence the landmark signature of Unlimited Designer -- happy outcome which flies in the face of insurmountable adverse odds: look at our own Solar System. Mars was not fine tuned for life but Earth somehow was (on top of the fine tuned Universe itself). People tried unsuccessfully to generate a single living cell in a lab by recreating perceived conditions of early Earth -- they could not. If science could really disprove the existence of Unlimited Omnipotent Intelligent Designer she needs to discover that we live in Simple Universe with no mathematical laws governing it with no fundamental constants, to say nothing about their fine tuning, with no life and no us to debate God's existence.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, the Anthropic Principle doesn't work for Universal Constants, but it totally works with regards to abiogenesis. But, that aside, surely you recognize that the God Hypothesis is vastly less simple than the Multiverse Hypothesis?

 

[Tigranes]

According to quantum mechanics, what we can observe about the world is only a tiny subset of what actually exists.

No. That is not a statement of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics only states how to calculate the result of a measurement. It does not make any statement whether the objects used to make these calculations (does not need to be a wave function, you can do quantum mechanics completely without wave functions) are real or not. There are interpretations that make such statements and there are very popular interpretations that state the wave functions are not real, but merely represent our knowledge (or lack of knowledge) about a system. In those interpretations, there is nothing more that actually exists beyond what we can observe. These interpretations are all compatible with quantum mechanics, so we cannot tell the difference (yet?). So your statement is wrong.

I am happy you've been the only courageous skeptic (so far) that happily admitted our limitations. Unfortunately, we still have some misunderstandings which need to be addressed before we return to the topic. Do you realize sometimes, that you are so eager to contradict that you take on the statement conveniently rephrased in your head and not the one presented by the opponent? Do you see any difference between
"we cannot observe the state of quantum superposition" and "there is nothing more that actually exists beyond what we can observe"?

This distinction between "incomplete knowledge" and "intrinsic quantum indeterminacy" is worth dwelling on. Following Sean Carroll and trying to be cat-friendly let's replace common quantum dead/alive cat story with sofa/table story. If the wave function (real or not) tells us there is a 75 percent chance of observing the cat under the table and a 25 percent chance of observing her on the sofa, that does not mean there is a 75 percent chance that the cat is under the table and a 25 percent chance that she is on the sofa. There is no such thing as "where the cat is." in, what I call, quantum common sense. Her quantum state is described by a superposition of the two distinct possibilities we would have in classical mechanical common sense. It's not even that "they are both true at once"; it's that there is no "true" place where the cat is -- which means that we DO have a certain reality which we cannot observe. The wave function is the best description we have of the reality of the cat, not reality of the wave function itself, which is a "less" quantum common sense topic.

 

[Tigranes]

Er, the Anthropic Principle doesn't work for Universal Constants, but it totally works with regards to abiogenesis. But, that aside, surely you recognize that the God Hypothesis is vastly less simple than the Multiverse Hypothesis?

You still need God to create all those Multiverses, if they exist, surely any number you pick needs to be less than infinity.

I am really not sure why are you so upset with Anthropic Principle. God claims to be your Father, not just being the builder of this house you live in and claim it came into existence by itself from nothing. Surely, the best way to disprove someone's claim of being a father is to demonstrate the absence of children. Again, universe without life would be a huge argument against God.

Would you recognize that this case needs to be heard in Paternity court and not as the Intellectual Property litigation. Stake are much higher than arguing with those who claim that something can come out of nothing

 

[Arakhor]

You still need God to create all those Multiverses

You're going on at people for refusing to accept their limitations and not admitting they don't know stuff, yet you pop out a line like that. How is that helpful to your supposed 'neutral' stance?

 

[Tigranes]

You're going on at people for refusing to accept their limitations and not admitting they don't know stuff, yet you pop out a line like that. How is that helpful to your supposed 'neutral' stance?

I will end up in hell for being neutral! Why is it so hard for people to understand that by not taking a side you are taking a side? Everything is very very personal when dealing with Personal God. When it comes to God it is not about what do you know is true, it is about what do you believe is true. Faith in God is not an intellectual choice -- it is a moral choice. Because of their pride people choose to believe that something, nay, everything! can come out of nothing, even though both our senses and our reason, which are subservient to our heart, do not support that kind of belief with at least one single real example/analogy.

 

[timtofly]

People end up in hell for being positive, negative, as well as neutral.

 

[Tigranes]

People end up in hell for being positive, negative, as well as neutral.

If you mean +/-/0 in terms of their opinions on Who/what should take credit for Creation of the world/worlds, well, I agree of course. Faith in Intelligent Design is not sufficient, but still absolutely necessary. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--His eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

 

[warpus]

If I don't believe in intelligent design being responsible for the creation of the Universe.. I will be tortured forever in a lake of fire? Along with all the great physicists and other scientists? And billions of other people?

That sounds a bit extreme to say the least. It aligns much better with "Name a nightmare and/or daydream Genghis Khan might have had" than "Name a fundamental thing about the Universe that is definitely true".

 

[Plotinus]

I can tell you exactly what is contradictory. The very fact that chance somehow is at odds with the intelligent design. As Pushkin puts it "chance is the mighty instantaneous weapon of the Providence". How can Multiverse doctrine possibly dissuade our faith in Unlimited Omnipotent Intelligent Designer, by making the whole picture even more complex? One does not to need to go outside of the Universe in search of other Multiverses to evidence the landmark signature of Unlimited Designer -- happy outcome which flies in the face of insurmountable adverse odds: look at our own Solar System. Mars was not fine tuned for life but Earth somehow was (on top of the fine tuned Universe itself). People tried unsuccessfully to generate a single living cell in a lab by recreating perceived conditions of early Earth -- they could not. If science could really disprove the existence of Unlimited Omnipotent Intelligent Designer she needs to discover that we live in Simple Universe with no mathematical laws governing it with no fundamental constants, to say nothing about their fine tuning, with no life and no us to debate God's existence.

You're confusing two very different things here:

(1) The claim that the fine-tuning argument doesn't work.
(2) The claim that there is no God.

The multiverse hypothesis (it isn't a "doctrine") doesn't "dissuade our faith" in God. I said pages and pages ago that even if the multiverse is real, it's still perfectly possible that God exists. But what the multiverse hypothesis does do (if it's true) is remove a reason for believing in God. The claim of the OP wasn't merely that God exists. It was that we can know that God exists because of fine-tuning. This is the claim that we're disputing, partly on the grounds of alternative explanations such as the multiverse hypothesis, and others too.

Is chance consistent with the existence of God? Sure it is. Is the multiverse consistent with the existence of God? Absolutely. But Unicorny and other fine-tuning argument proponents aren't merely saying that God's existence is consistent with other things - they're saying that we can know, or at least have a very good indication, that God exists. What we're saying is that we can't.

Here's another way of putting it. Unicorny claims that the observable evidence is, to all intents and purposes, inconsistent with God's non-existence. So God must exist. We're simply saying that the observable evidence is consistent with both God's existence and his non-existence. The fact that we observe what we do, then, does not rule out either of these possibilities.

You yourself, in this post here, make assumptions about what we know, which we don't. You talk about a "happy outcome which flies in the face of insurmountable adverse odds". But how do you know that the adverse odds are insurmountable (or, for that matter, adverse)? You are the one assuming knowledge that we do not, and cannot, have, because you are the one making sweeping statements about what's possible and what's impossible, and what's probable and what's improbable. I say we just don't know. If you think otherwise the onus is on you to explain why.