The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[gyozelemlg]

"If the universe had an absolute beginning, then it must have had a cause beyond itself, (unless you are willing to defend the idea that the universe just popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing – a scientific and logical absurdity). As the cause of nature, space, and time, this cause must be supernatural, timeless, and spaceless. Therefore, God exists".

This is logically a definition clause meaning that you define God as a cause of the Big Bang...probably because you feel that the Big Bang needs such a cause. This is not evidence, it is a matter of definition. Identifying your definition with the common idea of God is altogether another issue. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. Integrating it into a spiritual one is a nice attempt but one needs very clear understanding of how science and spirituality talk in different languages using different ideas. Using science or logic to refine understanding of spiritual matters is great but I advise caution.
By the way, the existence of God as a yes/no question is a popular one-I am amazed how popular it still is. This raises the issue of what people mean when they talk about the existence of anything including God's... I am not at all certain this is adequately clarified/understood.

 

[PhroX]

Going back to the original point of "fine tuning" indicating that there must have been a creator who caused the universe, I've actually realised that, even if the fine tuning theory is true, it doesn't even imply the "God" or whatever did the fine tuning created the universe, merely that it was able to influence the creation. The universe might well have been coming into existence anyway without God's influence, and He just stuck his fingers into the process and tweaked a few things...

 

[Funky]

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.

Amen!

This is really the core of the issue.

Does the multiverse exist? I don't know. Are there reasons to believe it exists?

Well, for one the multiverse would be the cosmological analogy to our understanding of the evolution of species. Before Darwin, people believed that animal species must have been designed, because they are so well-equipped for their roles in their environment. How do bees know which flowers to approach? Why are cheetahs so fast? Why do giraffes have such long necks? They must have been designed that way! Now of course we understand that the process of natural selection can explain all these things without the need for a supernatural creator.
Similarly, our universe looks designed for life (though one could argue that given the universe's extreme hostility towards life everywhere apart from our small planet - and even on earth many areas are uninhabitable - it is pretty bad design). The multiverse is basically a theory of natural selection for universes. What was an illusion of design among species could well be an illusion of design among universes.

Second, we have gained the understanding that scientific processes, like evolution or the big bang, start simple and become more complicated. The multiverse theory is a simple explanation and therefore consistent this understanding.

Third, the multiverse theory acts in accordance with physics. Or, in other words, our understanding of physics potentially allows the possibility of the multiverse.

Does all this serve as evidence for the multiverse? No.

Does it make the multiverse a plausible assumption? Yes. But the honest answer to the question whether the multiverse exists or not is nevertheless "I don't know". It will remain like that until we obtain evidence for its existence.



Does God exist? I don't know. Are there reasons to believe that he exists?

The history of religion versus science has been very one-sided. So far, there has never been any question on which there was once a scientific answer and we now have a religious answer. There are myriads of questions we once answered religiously which we now have natural explanations for.

Second, most gods are defined as very complex beings. Proposing a god would contradict our understanding that processes begin simple and become more complex.

Third, God would violate the natural laws. In the case of the Christian god, it is assumed that he is a supernatural being and exists outside of space. Not only does being supernatural by definition contradict natural laws, it is not clear what it could even mean to exist outside of space and time. Furthermore, specific theistic claims about miracles, virgin births, souls etc. stand in opposition to what we know about how the world works.

Does all this serve as evidence that God doesn't exist? No.

Does it make God a plausible assumption? No. What we know about the universe doesn't at all point to a god, even less to the specific theistic claims about God. Of course if we start with the conclusion and posit that there is a God, we can make him consistent with our understanding of the universe. All we have to do is define him in a way that he is. But we gain knowledge by following where the evidence leads. We don't gain knowledge by presupposing something and leading the evidence to it.

 

[Borachio]

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.

But how do you know this? By your own demand to recognize you have limits, you must surely think that you don't know this.

How can you make statements like "I will end up in hell for being neutral" and "I have limits" and keep a straight face, while accusing others of being contradictory?

Btw, I recognize I have limits too. So, tell me how you can see contradiction in others but not yourself. I'm honestly baffled.

(Actually, I'm not. This is an all too familiar phenomenon.)

Also, I wonder if there's a special hell reserved for people who pretend to knowledge they don't have.

 

[Funky]

I will end up in hell for being neutral!

I am still interested in your opinion on whether you think you deserve to go to hell for being neutral. By everything I can deduce from our conversations and your general attitude, you are a decent and pleasant person. Do you still think you deserve eternal torment for being neutral on whether or not a god exists?

 

[El_Machinae]

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

I'm not sure where the hiccup is. If we had good evidence of the multiverse, we could use the Anthropic Principle to explain our 'luck' in getting our constants (and we'd push the UCC one turtle down). But, we can't do this, since there's insufficient evidence. But you mentioned the uniqueness of Earth (vs Mars). In this case, no, it's not a fine-tuning example. The physical Universe is vast, really vast. The *reason* for any specific abiogenesis event would be partially drawing upon the Anthropic Principle.

Look, I've no problem with the idea of an Uncaused Cause. I don't even mind the idea our Universe was created intentionally. But, I see no reason to suspect the UCC is sentient, or that our putative creators intended for us to exist. As well, there's no reason to assume our creators are the UCC.

The problem you have is that you've given a host of characteristics to the UCC. Sentience, Holyness, Moral Authority, Intent, the Ability to Intervene, Communion, etc. You then accuse us of arrogance, but then engage in theodicies. That is Step C though. You lose us as soon as you shoe-horn attributes onto the UCC. Then, because you're using tthe Bible, you're also wearing its factual errors. So, you and Unicorny are flavouring your UCCs in biased ways, when you still haven't done Step B.

 

[brennan]

Religious apology in a nutshell:

1) Nothing can exist without a cause.

2) God can exist without a cause.

The inherent contradiction in the argument speaks for itself. All elaborations are merely special pleading.

The claim that the physical constants we know of have special values is highly questionable. We know that they have certain values within the universe we know of, we do not know why this is the case. We do, however, know that some of them could have different values, or even disappear altogether, which makes the claim for 'fine tuning' obviously bogus (see the 'weakless universe' page on wiki). If we then consider the fact that this 'finely tuned' universe is almost entirely hostile to the life it is supposedly tuned for and indeed almost entirely empty then where does the argument stand? Merely as an object of ridicule imo.

 

[Tigranes]

I am still interested in your opinion on whether you think you deserve to go to hell for being neutral. By everything I can deduce from our conversations and your general attitude, you are a decent and pleasant person. Do you still think you deserve eternal torment for being neutral on whether or not a god exists?

"Deserve" implies me passing judgement with sentencing. I think I have stated my personal opinion rather unequivocally: Who am I to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Your act of rebellion against your heavenly Father is the issue only you two can sort out. Even if I would grow up with you, I would still don't know you enough. Truly, God does not see what man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD sees the heart.

What I can say positively from my heart is, I don't think you understand the gravity of situation. There is a battle between good and evil waging every single day and the battlefield is human heart. Existence of God does not belong to realm of senses or reason. Your stance on the issue of existence of gravitons will not define your moral actions. But "neutral" in the realm of heart means something very, very different, as illustrated with the Good Samaritan parable. You don't have to be like robbers, you can be neutral and still wrong:

 

[Borachio]

That's fine with the Samaritan issue. Of course "passing by" is a deplorable thing to do when someone needs help.

But it has zero to do with whether we can claim to know that, if we don't think such and such, we're doomed to eternal torment.

There's a real mismatch here, don't you think?

 

[Tigranes]

But how do you know this? By your own demand to recognize you have limits, you must surely think that you don't know this.

How can you make statements like "I will end up in hell for being neutral" and "I have limits" and keep a straight face, while accusing others of being contradictory?

Btw, I recognize I have limits too. So, tell me how you can see contradiction in others but not yourself. I'm honestly baffled.

(Actually, I'm not. This is an all too familiar phenomenon.)

Also, I wonder if there's a special hell reserved for people who pretend to knowledge they don't have.

You really like parentheses, don't you ? Not a post goes by without familiar pattern: some cute puffy statement involving dear self, then something generally inclusive to feel good about self, then parenthesis to give opponent a cheek, and finally there is a mandatory twist, which makes you feel better on the expense of the opponent.

Have you read The Fall by Albert Camus? Every time I engage in debates with you I feel like I am talking to Jean-Baptiste Clamence. "Pronounce to yourself the words that years later haven't ceased to resound through my nights, and which I will speak at last through your mouth: "O young girl, throw yourself again into the water so that I might have a second time the chance to save the two of us!" A second time, eh, what imprudence! Suppose, dear sir, someone actually took our word for it? It would have to be fulfilled. Brr...! the water is so cold! But let's reassure ourselves. It's too late now, it will always be too late. Fortunately!"

How do I know? Well, our Father had informed us. I have chosen to trust bits of information made available to us, you have chosen to play your own god and define right from wrong. This is where we stand so far. You believe in self, I believe in Him.

 

[brennan]

I have chosen to trust bits of information made available to us...

Two things: firstly your post is mostly ad hom.

Secondly the above statement blatantly contradicts your previous statement that the existence of god 'does not belong to the realm of senses or reason'.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, even if you believe in God, you still need to define right from wrong...

 

[Tigranes]

Er, even if you believe in God, you still need to define right from wrong...

Sure you need to. But how? You have your opinions about attitude towards parents, I have mine, Donatien Alphonse François has his. Who's opinion is right? The opinion of God. If your opinion matches God's -- you are doing the right thing. He went above and beyond, trying to make His opinion known, He even arrived and walked on this Earth in person to even show you what is right and what is wrong. Consider this famous quote by Dostoyevsky:

I want to say to you, about myself, that I am a child of this age, a child of unfaith and scepticism, and probably (indeed I know it) shall remain so to the end of my life. How dreadfully has it tormented me (and torments me even now) this longing for faith, which is all the stronger for the proofs I have against it. And yet God gives me sometimes moments of perfect peace; in such moments I love and believe that I am loved; in such moments I have formulated my creed, wherein all is clear and holy to me. This creed is extremely simple; here it is: I believe that there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic, more rational, more manly, and more perfect than the Saviour; I say to myself with jealous love that not only is there no one else like Him, but that there could be no one. I would even say more: If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth.

 

[PhroX]

Why should God's opinion be right? Unless you define "right" as "what God likes", but that's a pretty arbitrary definition.

 

[warpus]

This is turning into a strange back and forth between people attempting to use reason and science to discuss the topic (as it should be), vs a deeply religious individual who is throwing Bible verses at them and taking the existence of God as something that's a given.

That's like a mute man and a blind man discussing contemporary art in a language they can't even themselves speak.

 

[Tigranes]

Two things: firstly your post is mostly ad hom.

Secondly the above statement blatantly contradicts your previous statement that the existence of god 'does not belong to the realm of senses or reason'.

No contradiction. Please follow the pattern: senses, reason, heart. To detect, to derive, to trust. Accept information as true via experiment (existence of an electron), through theoretical derivation (proposed existence of the dark matter), and by trusting credible source (limited information about existence of Socrates).

Now, senses are subservient to reason, they do not use reason -- reason uses them. Reason and senses are subservient to heart, they do not use moral right and wrong, heart is the one who considers all the available sources of obtaining the information in order to decide which moral opinion the person is going to form.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, it's even worse than that. Why should I trust some third-hand report? There's an incredible risk there, since you're not only relying on the Nuremberg defense with regards to your resulting moral errors, but you've also chosen trust a provenly fallible source.

It's like going into a math exam where they ask you to prove your reasoning, and you copy off of your neighbour who got Bs last semester. The Bible could be God's Milgram test for all we know. Will you make moral errors just 'cause some guy told you to?

 

[Tigranes]

This is turning into a strange back and forth between people attempting to use reason and science to discuss the topic (as it should be), vs a deeply religious individual who is throwing Bible verses at them and taking the existence of God as something that's a given.

That's like a mute man and a blind man discussing contemporary art in a language they can't even themselves speak.

I beg to differ. Every believer uses Bible in addition to all the sources of information available to skeptics. I really welcome this back and forth, which shows the difference between any -ism or any Zeus and God of the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I doubt that, for example, debate on positivism could generate so much intensity. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. But unfortunately, time is limited.

 

[Plotinus]

No contradiction. Please follow the pattern: senses, reason, heart. To detect, to derive, to trust. Accept information as true via experiment (existence of an electron), through theoretical derivation (proposed existence of the dark matter), and by trusting credible source (limited information about existence of Socrates).

But these are false dichotomies. I believe in Socrates not because I can perform some kind of epistemological act distinct from the senses and reason. I use my senses to read Plato and other authors who describe Socrates. I use my reason to consider whether these reports should be trusted or not. I don't just decide to believe them (or not to believe them) distinct from my senses and reason. If that decision were distinct, as you suggest, then it would be arbitrary, because why should I choose to trust rather than mistrust, or to trust one report rather than another? As soon as you try to answer that question, you're using senses and reason.

You implicitly acknowledge this yourself when you talk about "trusting credible source". How do you distinguish between a credible source and one that isn't credible? By using your senses and reason, of course.

You also contradict yourself when you try to argue, as you did above, that the fine-tuning argument and similar arguments work - when you said that the chances of the universe being as it are are very tiny unless you invoke God as an explanation. That's an attempt to show that belief in God is rational. You can't then turn around and insist that belief in God has nothing to do with reason but instead comes from "the heart".

If you really held the strongly fideist view that belief in God is solely about "trust" and "the heart" and has nothing to do with the senses or reason, there'd be no point debating the question at all. You wouldn't even be able to give any explanation for believing in this god rather than that one.

 

[warpus]

I beg to differ. Every believer uses Bible in addition to all the sources of information available to skeptics. I really welcome this back and forth, which shows the difference between any -ism or any Zeus and God of the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I doubt that, for example, debate on positivism could generate so much intensity. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. But unfortunately, time is limited.

It might be interesting for you, but it is useless as a discussion about the subject matter (i.e. the thread title) if you can't even agree on the basic premises of what's being discussed (with most other people in here).

Why do you need an argument for God's existence, for instance, if you take it for granted that he exists? This leads you to discussing different things than everybody else - it's a strange mish mash between sometimes related - sometimes unrelated ideas.