The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Tigranes]

Well, Christian orthodoxy holds that neither of those things is true!

Ok, oversimplification was needed as the zeroth approximation in the attempt to discuss the issue. Yes, we believe in bodily resurrection, but before that, right after death -- "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

 

[Tigranes]

We might just as well challenge you to name any physical reality which has a non-physical cause! To claim that the universe is caused by an immaterial entity existing outside space and time is to appeal to something outside all experience just as much as claiming that the universe isn't caused by anything.

Depends on your definition of "physical". Matter and energy? Information is information, not matter or energy (Norbert Wiener), for example.

See, the reality we observe around us is very intelligent, complex, and specific. If something could come out of nothing -- why would anything matter at all? We could not even have this debate -- what is right or what is wrong becomes irrelevant, once we elevate "Nothing" on the throne of the Creator -- all bets are off! There is absolutely no physical need for Coulomb's inverse-square law, a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles to be analogous to Isaac Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation, for example. If "nothing" can start something -- there is no need for laws itself. Let everything be random and absurd! And yet, we are hear and alive and try to use logical laws to discuss such a fine concept as fine tuning.

While I agree that it is not known under what conditions intelligent life could form and what form or shape that would take -- a relevant observation in our discussion is that for an observer to exist to observe fine-tuning, the Universe must be able to support intelligent life. As such the conditional probability of observing a Universe that is fine-tuned to support intelligent life is 1. This observation is known as the anthropic principle and is particularly relevant if the creation of the Universe was probabilistic or if multiple universes with a variety of properties exist.

 

[uppi]

Depends on your definition of "physical". Matter and energy? Information is information, not matter or energy (Norbert Wiener), for example.

And information is entropy (Rolf Landauer).

See, the reality we observe around us is very intelligent, complex, and specific. If something could come out of nothing -- why would anything matter at all? We could not even have this debate -- what is right or what is wrong becomes irrelevant, once elevate "Nothing" on the throne of Creator -- all bets are off! There is absolutely no physical need for Coulomb's inverse-square law, a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles to be analogous to Isaac Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation, for example. If "nothing" can start something -- there is no need for laws itself. Let everything be random and absurd! And yet, we are hear and alive and try to use logical laws to discuss such a fine concept as fine tuning.

Both of these 'laws' are human-made approximations. So in our universe, there cannot be a physical reason for them.

 

[Flying Pig]

The fact that an uncaused event is possible does not mean that there are no caused events. Some swans are black, but most swans are white.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

See, the reality we observe around us is very intelligent, complex, and specific. If something could come out of nothing -- why would anything matter at all? We could not even have this debate -- what is right or what is wrong becomes irrelevant, once elevate "Nothing" on the throne of Creator...

I found it particulary hilarious how we are looking towards nature when we want to improve our own design yet are perfectly ready to deny there is any inteligence involved...

I think problem may rise when you want to put on the throne anything which others arent 100% happy with - such as Christian definition of God. Its really rather a psychological issue rather then disagreement in fundamentals...

 

[El_Machinae]

It simply boggles my mind how much sophism needs to be employed by skeptics to avoid simple realization: they believe in death everlasting and so they act accordingly while we believe in life everlasting, and at least try to act accordingly. Due to our limited nature we cannot positively know what happens to self after body dies. So we have to assume that self either dies with the body or is granted freedom from the body and can exist in new form of a spirit.

Yeah, it's true. I believe in death everlasting. If I believed in life everlasting, then Pascal's Wager would resonate (and you'd go about trying to figure out which Soul King to obey). You'd not even have to believe in the morality the Soul King espoused in order to want to act in such a way as to benefit your soul.

I don't think anyone here is engaging in sophism to deny your simple realization, we know you're living your life differently because you believe in the soul!

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure that living as if you're going to live for ever after death is the right thing to do. (Besides it being highly contradictory.)

I think it would make a person lackadaisical about the condition of others living right now.

It might even make a person blasé about their own lives. And persuade them that suicide bombing was a good idea.

And why would such a person bother about the state of the planet?

I'd suggest that living life as if it's the only one there is, might mean you put a premium on doing what's right for its own sake, rather than in hope of eternal paradise, or in fear of eternal damnation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, it can be used either way. Living a life of love, and assuming it will be 'worth it' in the end would probably make for some very nice people.

I use the term Soul King to distinguish the concept from the Creator. An entity might have dominion over your soul without being the UnCaused Cause. It needn't even be in charge of Objective Morality either, and merely determine your fate based on any whim. It's what happens in the real world. The company that lays you off and promotes your slacker co-worker isn't doing so because they wrote the Law of Economics. They're just doing it 'cause they wanna. They're still subject to exogenous natural law regarding the 'rightness' of their decision.

 

[Tigranes]

The fact that an uncaused event is possible does not mean that there are no caused events. Some swans are black, but most swans are white.

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" (c)

False analogy, and, in addition, replaces "all" with "most". All events are caused, not most. Otherwise "Most animals are not unicorns but some are" would also count as logical.

Even chaos obeys mathematical equations. There are no "uncaused" events. That can not possibly be, because it could never possibly be.(c)

En archē ēn ho Lógos. Design requires Designer, Law requires Lawgiver, conserving energy requires initial input, existence of limited human implies possibility to take limited to the limit, limited senses, reason and morality to infinite senses, infinite reason and Most Holy God. Who visited this Earth and showed on specific examples how real "Holy" feels like. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

It is quite easy to count 5 prayers a day and put a check mark for the day. But even after 2000 years it is quite hard to live by standards of Jesus. Have you ever hated anyone? Revelation names you a murderer then. Any honest thinker who ever read Gospels and really familiar with his own limited nature immediately faces a dilemma when comes across any statement made there: it is either man like me knows better or Man like Him knows better.

Which brings me to the rejection of the main dogma skeptics swear by: "I do not have an active position, I maintain simple lack of belief. Burden of proof ("onus" does not rhyme well to my ear) is on the believer! Prove it to me and I will believe!" Excuse me. As a grown up person anything you state is your position, you live by that, you treat other people based on that, you make choices based on that. And you have as much responsibility to defend your position as your opponent. Enough with this "that don't impress me much" attitude. I am an atheist in Zeus, and this is my position based on him chasing mortal women, yes. This is my active informed position, it is my burden to maintain it, and I assume full responsibility. I have no position about Velmindox, because I have no claims to consider him.

Dear skeptics. Do you really think of yourselves as jaded presiding judges while believers are some kind of junior prosecutors in your court with a burden of proof on their shoulders? Hello! Didn't you realize it by now that we are all the same? We are all defendants who need answers. We are all born unto this cell we call world as death row convicts. We are all to face death penalty just because we didn't die before we were born. Educated-ignorant, rich-poor, criminal-saints -- we are all on this death row and we have no idea when they gonna call our number and what will be the method of execution. There is just one way to get born, but so many different ways to die! No one can afford to play lazy judge and demand proofs, any "good indications" of possibility of parole need to be considered first-handily, without delegating this responsibility to fellow cellmates.

 

[Arakhor]

All events are caused, not most. Otherwise "Most animals are not unicorns but some are" would also count as logical.

Except that that is a logical (if incorrect) statement.

Even chaos obeys mathematical equations. There are no "uncaused" events. That can not possibly be, because it could never possibly be.

Which leads one to the uncomfortable question: what caused God?

En archē ēn ho Lógos.

In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.

We can swap Classical languages all day if you really want, but that doesn't actually help the situation, because, as has been pointed out numerous times already, even if the universe has been fine-tuned, it certainly does not prove the existence of God, as we has no conceivable scientific evidence as to who might have fine-tuned the universe in the first place.

 

[Borachio]

Dear skeptics. Do you really think of yourselves as jaded presiding judges while believers are some kind of junior prosecutors in your court with a burden of proof on their shoulders? Hello! Didn't you realize it by now that we are all the same? We are all defendants who need answers. We are all born unto this cell we call world as death row convicts. We are all to face death penalty just because we didn't die before we were born. Educated-ignorant, rich-poor, criminal-saints -- we are all on this death row and we have no idea when they gonna call our number and what will be the method of execution. There is just one way to get born, but so many different ways to die! No one can afford to play lazy judge and demand proofs, any "good indications" of possibility of parole need to be considered first-handily, without delegating this responsibility to fellow cellmates.

It is true that we're all going to die. But beyond that, what can we know?

I don't pretend to knowledge I don't have, and I accept the consequences of that.

I simply do not know what it will be like for me to die - but it's not for want of imagining what it may be like. It's certainly the second most significant event of my life.

What I do not know either is what will happen to anyone else. And that is something I choose not to even want to know.

 

[Flying Pig]

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" (c)

False analogy, and, in addition, replaces "all" with "most". All events are caused, not most. Otherwise "Most animals are not unicorns but some are" would also count as logical.

No - as has been pointed out to you, all events within human experience are caused - and for a fair few of them (eg. radioactive decay) that's essentially an article of faith, because we assume that the cause is there but we're not able to see it. The creation of universes is sufficiently outside human experience that we can't reason via induction about it. Hence my black swan example - people who argued that there were no black swans were wrong to extrapolate from an area (Europe) about which they had experience into one (the entire world) about which they didn't.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Which leads one to the uncomfortable question: what caused God?

What caused man? Chance and coincidence? Knowing quite well how almost perfectly our bodies are designed and that it takes years of study plus centuries of scientific development for our inteligence to comprehend some of its basic functions in detail it should be obvious that we are dealing with inteligence far transceding our present intelectual capacity.
I dont know what caused God but if there is possibility of something exist uncaused God is most likely adept here...

 

[Plotinus]

What caused man? Chance and coincidence? Knowing quite well how almost perfectly our bodies are designed and that it takes years of study plus centuries of scientific development for our inteligence to comprehend some of its basic functions in detail it should be obvious that we are dealing with inteligence far transceding our present intelectual capacity.

Natural selection. That's not chance and coincidence, but it's not design either.

You're assuming your conclusion when you say "our bodies are designed". The claim that they're designed is not an empirical fact but an inference. And evolutionary biology shows that it's a false inference.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Natural selection. That's not chance and coincidence, but it's not design either.

You're assuming your conclusion when you say "our bodies are designed". The claim that they're designed is not an empirical fact but an inference. And evolutionary biology shows that it's a false inference.

What is the stand of evolutionary biology in this regard? I didnt say conscious inteligence design btw. The fact that there is an inteligable design in every part of biosphere seems obvious. And its only becouse its inteligable that our inteligence finds any use of it.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't see how something can be "designed" without any conscious intelligence being involved! And it's not obvious at all that there's "intelligible design" throughout the biosphere. What's obvious is that organisms and their parts are very well suited to perform the various functions that aid their survival and the survival of their offspring. To say that this is "design" is to say something further - it's to form an inference on the basis of this observation. But it's not an obviously correct inference, and in fact we now have good reason to think it's a false inference, because there are alternative hypotheses that explain the same observation better.

I should add that one strength, at least, of the "fine-tuning" argument as articulated by Unicorny in this thread is that it doesn't contradict science. Science has not demonstrated any explanation for the "fine-tuning" phenomena, so to posit God as an explanation for them doesn't involve saying that science is downright wrong. But when it comes to the facts of biology, things are quite different. Science does have very well grounded explanations for those, and appealing to God instead does require you to contradict the findings of science.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think a lot of biologists accept phrases like 'our hearts are designed to pump blood', but only with the express caveat that there isn't a designer.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Teleological explanations are pretty common in biology. They are just heuristics which make it easier to deal with it. The inference Plotinus speaks of is not to be taking seriously.

 

[Plotinus]

It's a circumlocution. They don't really mean it's literally designed. But I think that biologists ought to be more careful about such language, especially in the popular sphere (David Attenborough often calls animals' anatomical features "designed" to do various things, and it's misleading since he doesn't really think that).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't see how something can be "designed" without any conscious intelligence being involved! And it's not obvious at all that there's "intelligible design" throughout the biosphere. What's obvious is that organisms and their parts are very well suited to perform the various functions that aid their survival and the survival of their offspring. To say that this is "design" is to say something further - it's to form an inference on the basis of this observation. But it's not an obviously correct inference, and in fact we now have good reason to think it's a false inference, because there are alternative hypotheses that explain the same observation better.

I should add that one strength, at least, of the "fine-tuning" argument as articulated by Unicorny in this thread is that it doesn't contradict science. Science has not demonstrated any explanation for the "fine-tuning" phenomena, so to posit God as an explanation for them doesn't involve saying that science is downright wrong. But when it comes to the facts of biology, things are quite different. Science does have very well grounded explanations for those, and appealing to God instead does require you to contradict the findings of science.

Interesting. Organisms are "very well suited to survive" is just another hint at inteligent design. To say about something it suited to survive is to declare purpose and you cant have purpose without inteligence. Its really that simple....