The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Unicorny]

Moderator Action: Split off from this thread.

A simple arguement in favour of God's existence goes as follows:

Scientists have discovered that the universe has an absolute beginning. The agnostic physicist, Alexander Vilenkin, said, “it is said that an argument is what it takes to convince reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the idea of a past-eternal universe. They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

He said ‘problem’ because atheists do not like the way the evidence points. 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.

 

[Arakhor]

Actually, the Big Bang theory doesn't postulate if anything existed before it, as we have no possible way of knowing that.

 

[madviking]

"before the big bang" makes no sense. there was no space, time, or spacetime to speak of.

there are also ways to explain the big bang without resorting to god.

 

[Unicorny]

A second argument in the favor of God's existence goes as follows:

In recent decades, scientists have discovered what is known as cosmological constants. These are elements of the universe, which if altered even a little, then life could not exist. The astronomer, Doctor Hugh Ross, calculates that there are 122 of these cosmological constants. This realization has brought multiple atheist scientists to believe in God. Doctor Frank Tipler said, “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

The existence of intelligent life falls into a vastly small life-permitting range. To suggest that they came to be by chance is a even a bigger leap of faith than believing in God.

 

[Arakhor]

"before the big bang" makes no sense. there was no space, time, or spacetime to speak of.

Not as we understand them of course, because we have no frame of reference to describe anything that might have been there beforehand. That doesn't mean that the Big Bang had no cause.

 

[Unicorny]

The universe occupied an infinitesimal point over 13 billion years ago. Then for whatever reason at time t=0, this point began an unprecedented inflation, in this instant time and space were born. This event has become known as the Big Bang.

It is from this starting point that everything we are familiar with came into existence: protons, neutrons, stars, galaxies - even space and time itself are here as a result of said event. So the question is: what caused this event to happen? From where did the infinitesimal dense & small point come from in the first place?

For many "God caused the big bang" is a perfectly reasonable response. This seems to be a more satisfying alternative than the universe just popping in out of nothing, without a cause, and having no driving force behind it.

The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did God come from?" - to which the answer is He is both uncreated and eternal. God has to be uncreated otherwise there would be no creation in the first place, i.e. there would be no universe, nothing.

Because if something had created God, then that something would have to be created by something else, invoking an infinite endless cycle (infinite regression) of past-creation and therefore, depriving the universe and everything else from existence as the opportunity wouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[madviking]

while the argument is reasonably sound, i doubt its validity.

A second argument in the favor of God's existence goes as follows:

In recent decades, scientists have discovered what is known as cosmological constants. These are elements of the universe, which if altered even a little, then life could not exist. The astronomer, Doctor Hugh Ross, calculates that there are 122 of these cosmological constants. This realization has brought multiple atheist scientists to believe in God. Doctor Frank Tipler said, “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

The existence of intelligent life falls into a vastly small life-permitting range. To suggest that they came to be by chance is a even a bigger leap of faith than believing in God.

anthropic principle

 

[Unicorny]

anthropic principle

Otherwise known as a trivial tautology. A theory is that only sound by the virtue of its logical form (the conclusion is identical to the premise) and not because a substantive claim is made and supported by observation of reality.

It's categorized as easy deus ex machina, i.e. whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unimaginative theory. Finally, no possible observational evidence could support it.
It's a non-scientific concept and therefore holds as much merit as fiction.

 

[Flying Pig]

No, the anthropic principle is that, logically speaking, any universe in which we exist must be perfectly tuned to our existence - it's the logic of the fish in a pond who remarks on how unlikely it was that the earth should be shaped so as to make his pond exactly the size and shape that it is.

 

[Unicorny]

No, the anthropic principle is that, logically speaking, any universe in which we exist must be perfectly tuned to our existence - it's the logic of the fish in a pond who remarks on how unlikely it was that the earth should be shaped so as to make his pond exactly the size and shape that it is.

The definitions may vary depending on which version you choose to use (from weak, to strong etc). However, the entire concept is philosophical i.e. non-scientific and therefore holds as much merit as fiction as it cannot be proved by any observational evidence in the real world.

P.S: Who made the pond for the fish in that exact size and shape? Or did it pop into existence from nowhere?

 

[Arakhor]

I'm perfectly happy to say that God caused the Big Bang, but such a line as "to suggest that they came to be by chance is a even a bigger leap of faith than believing in God" is a very silly fallacy (arguing from incredulity). Creationists love that fallacy.

 

[Unicorny]

I'm perfectly happy to say that God caused the Big Bang, but such a line as "to suggest that they came to be by chance is a even a bigger leap of faith than believing in God" is a very silly fallacy (arguing from incredulity). Creationists love that fallacy.

True. I'd say that it holds no more merit than someone else having faith in God.

 

[Flying Pig]

The definitions may vary depending on which version you choose to use (from weak, to strong etc). However, the entire concept is philosophical i.e. non-scientific and therefore holds as much merit as fiction as it cannot be proved by any observational evidence in the real world.

P.S: Who made the pond for the fish in that exact size and shape? Or did it pop into existence from nowhere?

The anthropic principle can absolutely be proved - it is simply the (tautological and therefore necessarily true) observation that the odds of any universe containing humans being able to contain humans is 100%, which goes together with the many-worlds theory (which I don't quite understand, but I'm sure some people here do) that every possible universe already exists. So the odds of those constants being so aligned is actually 100%, God or no God.

The point (without going too far into geology) is that any fish in any pond would say the same - the actual shape of the pond is irrelevant.

 

[Unicorny]

The anthropic principle can absolutely be proved - it is simply the (tautological and therefore necessarily true) observation that the odds of any universe containing humans being able to contain humans is 100%, which goes together with the many-worlds theory (which I don't quite understand, but I'm sure some people here do) that every possible universe already exists. So the odds of those constants being so aligned is actually 100%, God or no God.

The point (without going too far into geology) is that any fish in any pond would say the same - the actual shape of the pond is irrelevant.

No. The AP simply states that the universe appears to have been fine-tuned for our existence, and because we exist in it, therefore, it must have tuned itself for our existence.

It's a non-scientific philosophical assertion with no plausible real world proof, and holds as much merit as fiction. Same goes for the multiple-universe idea.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's the strong anthropic principle - the belief that the universe actually has some sort of tuning mechanism - and is a lot of rubbish. The weak principle is simply that any universe we're in must be able to accommodate us, and therefore it's not a surprise that the universe is so finely balanced - if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.

 

[Unicorny]

That's the strong anthropic principle - the belief that the universe actually has some sort of tuning mechanism - and is a lot of rubbish. The weak principle is simply that any universe we're in must be able to accommodate us, and therefore it's not a surprise that the universe is so finely balanced - if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.

Even the weak version of the AP amounts to nothing more than a philosophical proposition; to prove that there's nothing special about us being in a universe that's so finely balanced, one must find evidence of life in universes other than ours. Any other universe is, by most definitions, unobservable (otherwise it would be included in our portion of this universe).

But observing a universe in which an observer cannot exist is impossible. Hence, no real world evidence can be used to prove that there's nothing unique or special about the universe that we live in.

 

[Old Hippy]

Even the weak version of the AP amounts to nothing more than a philosophical proposition; to prove that there's nothing special about us being in a universe that's so finely balanced, one must find evidence of life in universes other than ours. Any other universe is, by most definitions, unobservable (otherwise it would be included in our portion of this universe).

But observing a universe in which an observer cannot exist is impossible. Hence, no real world evidence can be used to prove that there's nothing unique or special about the universe that we live in.

that only suggests that it is unique and special for us and tadpoles and cockroaches etc., not that the universe is unique and special as you point out, we have no evidence either way, so we don't know if in fact it is finely balanced. All we know is that it is the universe we are in

 

[Flying Pig]

That's actually a great point - it's only unique and special for the tiny fraction of possible sentient beings that need the cosmological constants, position of the Earth and so on to be in this precise range to function. In which case my fish analogy becomes even better.

 

[Unicorny]

that only suggests that it is unique and special for us and tadpoles and cockroaches etc., not that the universe is unique and special as you point out, we have no evidence either way, so we don't know if in fact it is finely balanced. All we know is that it is the universe we are in

No. We have evidence that the universe is finely balanced to support life, that even the slightest adjustment or change in any of its constant would render it incompatible for life.

Now the AP theory purports (in its strong form) that there's nothing unique about the universe being finely balanced to a pin point precision because life exists in it, and therefore, it must be as such to support life. In which case, proof must be established by finding other universes with life - after all, if there's nothing unique about our universe, the vast majority of other universes must be the same.

The above is an exercise in futility as such observational proof cannot be established in the real world, rendering the entire theory as a non-scientific concept since it cannot be proven or tested against the scientific method. Therefore, it holds no more merit than fiction.

The weak AP theory states that since we humans live in an inherently unique part of the universe, humans must require unique conditions to live and exist. It's nothing more than a circular assertion like 1 + 1 = 2, therefore, 2 is = 1 + 1. It holds no value.

Edit:

Stephen Hawking noted that:"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang, burning out all the stars in mere minutes if they even were allowed to form to exist

 

[Old Hippy]

No. We have evidence that the universe is finely balanced to support life, that even the slightest adjustment or change in any of its constant would render it incompatible for life.

yes to support your life but you do not know if it is so unbalanced as to not support life in the centre of suns or black holes, so it being 'balanced' only tells you, that you won the lottery, it does not tell you that it is finely tuned, as the 122 things that you say make it so, could be a complete mistake and we are just the result of an unbalanced universe, and Gods plan was grander than you can imagine, after all he did start again once or twice according to our understanding of his plan.