The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Tigranes]

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

Well, one has to start somewhere. You left your brethren at plus infinity and went to support the cause of minus infinity. We would need to agree on the first step before we arrive to the last.

 

[warpus]

I hope nobody thinks I am being a jerk by introducing Steve into this - my posts are based in logical intent, not emotional impact. I have so far however not seen any reason to believe that "Steve did it" as any less believable than "God did it", if we're talking about what happened before the Big Bang. As such I see it as a reasonable potential solution to bring up - as long as we're bringing up random solutions that might or might not have anything to do with the universe coming into being - you might as well include Steve.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

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.

Ah, the old "it couldn't have happened randomly" argument again. The same exact argument was made in the old days to describe how life got here. It couldn't have happened randomly, therefore God did it. Then natural selection came along and showed that there was a 3rd option. An option that requires neither random chance nor God, but simply a previously unknown natural law.

And now the same mistake is being made again. You are presuming that there is no 3rd choice, either the universe with its seemingly finely tuned constants happened completely randomly or else God must have done it. But history shows time and again that what was previously supposed to be inexplicable except by the phrase "God did it" turns out to be rather more mundane than that once we learn more. I wouldn't be so sure that this time will be different if I were you. It is absolutely possible that the constants we see that appear so finely tuned are in fact not random at all, but a necessary consequence of some natural law that we don't know about yet.

And if you have to choose, choose Lord Brodin, he can bench more than any other god.

 

[Old Hippy]

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.

or a third possibility that we are all children of the Universe and we can only ever choose our own right and wrong, some religions have faith in that

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.

apart from someone with an eating disorder having already made a choice based on their beliefs
it would be the right choice not to eat for about half the eating disorders and a healthy choice for awhile at that, probably a choice should be made but it would help to consider all the possibilities and reevaluate them as time goes by

 

[Funky]

Tigranes, I'd like to ask you two questions.

First, why exactly do you believe in God? Do you find the evidence for his existence convincing or is it rather a matter of faith?

Second, if you rely on faith, or possibly personal experience, would you accept that this does not consititute a reason for anyone else to believe in him?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, one has to start somewhere. You left your brethren at plus infinity and went to support the cause of minus infinity. We would need to agree on the first step before we arrive to the last.

Well, as you can see, "team plus infinity" seems to not really understand basic probabilities or history. They plant their flag in fine-tuning, when it's not at all clear it's the wise thing to do. Unfortunately, the team is blind to their errors. I don't think this suggests they have the best mechanism for getting to the truth.

 

[Borachio]

Fine tuning=experimental evidence.

I don't agree.

In the first place, the cosmological constant isn't evidence of fine tuning. (Though some religiously minded people think it is. I think they're just grasping on to absolutely anything that might support their case. Step 1: Let's believe it's God; Step 2: Let's find some reason to think so.)

And in the second, it isn't the result of observation but of theoretical physics.

 

[Plotinus]

Tigranes, I'd like to ask you two questions.

First, why exactly do you believe in God? Do you find the evidence for his existence convincing or is it rather a matter of faith?

Second, if you rely on faith, or possibly personal experience, would you accept that this does not consititute a reason for anyone else to believe in him?

This is really the point, here. Religious people often appeal to "faith" - which they rarely bother to define - as some kind of alternative way of knowing, or believing, distinct from reason. As I mentioned earlier, this is a modern distinction, unknown to the biblical or other ancient authors. It has its roots in medieval thought but is really an Enlightenment development (which is why Catholicism has never accepted it). Still, if one accepts this distinction and the basically fideist viewpoint that it implies, it does mean that you have to choose: either it's reasonable and rational to believe in God, for reasons that can be explained and critically examined, or it's a matter of faith and not about evidence etc. Either of these might be a consistent viewpoint, but they're not really compatible. It's the shifting unpredictably between them that seems dodgy.

John Locke pointed this out over three hundred years ago:

I find every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly: and where it fails them, they cry out, It is matter of faith, and above reason. And I do not see how they can argue with any one, or ever convince a gainsayer who makes use of the same plea, without setting down strict boundaries between faith and reason; which ought to be the first point established in all questions where faith has anything to do.

 

[Borachio]

But how does one do it? How do you, by an effort of will, decide you're going to believe in something for which you have no evidence?

And that a moment's reflection on the problem of suffering will tell you is irremediably contradictory?

I wish I knew how it's done. I've tried to do it myself, but I found it impossible.

I've mentioned this to people, who believe, before. And the more reflective of them have just replied that it doesn't pay to think too deeply about these issues.

 

[Tigranes]

This is really the point, here. Religious people often appeal to "faith" - which they rarely bother to define - as some kind of alternative way of knowing, or believing, distinct from reason. As I mentioned earlier, this is a modern distinction, unknown to the biblical or other ancient authors. It has its roots in medieval thought but is really an Enlightenment development (which is why Catholicism has never accepted it). Still, if one accepts this distinction and the basically fideist viewpoint that it implies, it does mean that you have to choose: either it's reasonable and rational to believe in God, for reasons that can be explained and critically examined, or it's a matter of faith and not about evidence etc. Either of these might be a consistent viewpoint, but they're not really compatible. It's the shifting unpredictably between them that seems dodgy.

John Locke pointed this out over three hundred years ago:

It is surprising, given the complexity of the world, that there are only 3 distinctly different ways to form a knowledge or a conviction: through experiment, through theoretical derivation, by admitting the evidence of reliable witnesses/ writers. Belivers add to this the forth method- - revelation, which in fact is the form of the third method. Faith is from hearing and hearing is from Word of God, not from fine tuning evidence . I became Christian somewhere in the middle of the Matthew 5. And then, of course, I had mystical experience as well as numerous personal miracles. And everything I see around, including fine tuning.

 

[warpus]

But how does one do it? How do you, by an effort of will, decide you're going to believe in something for which you have no evidence?

For me, it was a matter of trusting my parents, teachers, priests, and other authority figures. "They can't possibly be wrong, they're adults" is what resonated with me at the time. I was learning about the world, and God was simply a part of it - that's what I was taught and that's what I accepted.

I suppose to answer your question, I didn't ask for evidence fiercely, because I also didn't ask for evidence of the moon landing.. or North America.. or any of the other things I was learning about in the first 10 or whatever years of my life. You just accept it and move on - that's how it worked. There was way too much new information coming my way to be able to question every single claim.

And that's probably how most people go about doing it - they form and/or accept a belief in God at an early age. There's of course plenty of counterexamples, but I don't think I'd be incorrect in claiming that most people go through what I did - they are instructed to believe at a young age.

 

[Borachio]

Well, yes. That's exactly what happened to me too.

But to continue to believe after adolescence would have required an effort of will from me.

Now, a simple effort of will isn't beyond me (in theory), but an effort of will against every reflective thought is.

Or has proved so, so far.

 

[warpus]

Well, yes. That's exactly what happened to me too.

But to continue to believe after adolescence would have required an effort of will from me.

Now, a simple effort of will isn't beyond me (in theory), but an effort of will against every reflective thought is.

Or has proved so, so far.

Well, a lot of people end up living in communities where such belief is strong: Their family members believe, their colleagues believe, and so on. It is not easy to drop a belief that has such an importance to your community - you might get shunned. Most people would prefer to remain as a part of the community - and not become an outsider.

And again there are of course counterexamples to that as well. But communities are important to religious faith initiatives and religious faith continuation. It's what keeps the whole thing turning.

I think you're also underestimating how strong such a religious feeling can be - and overestimating how easy it is for most people to just throw away something they believed all their lives - and put such importance into.

 

[Borachio]

I understand the sense of community. And I feel I'm losing out without it. But I simply had no choice.

I could only stand and say "I believe" such and such, when really I didn't, so many times. I'm by no means unique, and I think it's why churches in the UK are mostly empty.

 

[Funky]

I became Christian somewhere in the middle of the Matthew 5. And then, of course, I had mystical experience as well as numerous personal miracles. And everything I see around, including fine tuning.

I have three follow-up questions, if I may. (Not trying to be presumptuous, I'm genuinely interested.)

1. Matthew 5 apparently resonated with you. The bible's endorsement of slavery (e.g. Luke 12:47-48) assumedly doesn't. How do you decide which passages to approve of and which passages to ignore?

2. How do you distinguish a personal miracle from chance or luck?

3. Do you accept that many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists have also had what they would describe as mystical experiences?

 

[warpus]

I understand the sense of community. And I feel I'm losing out without it. But I simply had no choice.

I could only stand and say "I believe" such and such, when really I didn't, so many times. I'm by no means unique, and I think it's why churches in the UK are mostly empty.

Yeah I know, I feel the same way. I felt like an outsider, going to masses, participating in the rituals, and all that stuff. I didn't believe any of it - so why pretend? I felt like a hypocrite and a jerk. But then by telling my parents what my beliefs were - and that they did not at all coincide with what the church teaches as its major tenets - that didn't really help any. For a while anyway.

 

[Tigranes]

I have three follow-up questions, if I may. (Not trying to be presumptuous, I'm genuinely interested.)

1. Matthew 5 apparently resonated with you. The bible's endorsement of slavery (e.g. Luke 12:47-48) assumedly doesn't. How do you decide which passages to approve of and which passages to ignore?

2. How do you distinguish a personal miracle from chance or luck?

3. Do you accept that many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists have also had what they would describe as mystical experiences?

Even if you were presumptuous, I would not mind I was a moderator of the most popular Russian forum -- which happens to be about religion, not sports, or politics, or celebrities. We had folks from neonazies to bishops, so no matter what happens in CFC it feels like a gentle breeze.

1. The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

This is a beautiful and wise verse and has nothing to do with endorsement of slavery. Master is the God, servants (or slaves) are us. It basically says that you and cannibals from Tierra del Fuego will be treated according to the spiritual truth revealed to them.

In short I accept every verse in the context of the entire Bible. When devil says "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'" I usually say "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST'.

2. Prayer. If I asked something and received it is my personal miracle. Like salvation for my militantly atheist father. One day I was praying really hard and opened my Bible on the random page. My eyes picked the very same verse and it said: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. This gave me some peace of mind.

3. I sure do. The source and the nature of experience is the key. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

There is a true white, there is a true black and 50 shades of grey in between.

During my freshman year me and ten other classmates visited our friend's uncle, who fell from the 3rd story building, hit his head, survived, and developed paranormal abilities, which were rather striking. Everything about dude was pretty strange and I was not sure what to think of him. His nephew asked him to tell every on of us something only we could possibly know. Some girls started to scream when he revealed their secrets. I had a feeling this could be something spiritually unhealthy, so I asked God to sort things out for me. And would you believe it -- he somehow "accidentally" passed me as he was going from classmate to classmate (we were all sitting at the round table).

 

[timtofly]

I hope nobody thinks I am being a jerk by introducing Steve into this - my posts are based in logical intent, not emotional impact. I have so far however not seen any reason to believe that "Steve did it" as any less believable than "God did it", if we're talking about what happened before the Big Bang. As such I see it as a reasonable potential solution to bring up - as long as we're bringing up random solutions that might or might not have anything to do with the universe coming into being - you might as well include Steve.

Steve lacks some historical experience.

 

[warpus]

Steve lacks some historical experience.

Historical God doesn't exist either, unfortunately. Even historical Jesus is "just a human".

Sorry, historically speaking God and Steve are even.

Where God has the upper hand are religious texts - he appears in quite a lot of them - and Steve appears in none. But that is just the power of Steve - he is very good at staying hidden. He is an introvert and doesn't like to be in the spotlight - so he prefers for people not to write about him at all. You might say "Oh, that's convenient", but that is just the power of Steve. God doesn't want to be seen - Steve doesn't want to be seen or read about.

 

[Gori the Grey]

In this universe Steve is an introvert, but in other universes, he's all (or I should say He's all), "Hey, look at me. I am who Steve. I'm omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenovelent and what not. I'm the uncaused cause, baby."

Oh, you should see the internet discussions, in those universes, between bestevers and astevists over whether Steve is behind the Big Bang. Well, it's called the Pretty Big Bang in those universes. Over whether the fine tuning of the universe points to a Steve. It's crazy.