The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Agent327]

I see this thread has veered of significantly off its supposed topic.

Moderator Action: 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.

Moderator Action:

Since the actual cause (if there was one) of the Big Bang is unknown, those last two sentences aren't proof (or evidence) of anything but speculation. (It's also not a satisfactory answer - let alone explanation - to say God caused the Big Bang. It is, in fact, tantamount to saying: We don't know. Which would be the scientifically sound answer.)

 

[Plotinus]

The attempt to prove God's existence from the mere existence of the universe, on the basis that everything must have a cause (except God himself, for some reason), is obviously quite distinct from the attempt to prove God's existence from the nature of the universe, e.g. the fact that its laws are apparently "fine-tuned" for life. I don't think it's much better. The weak spot is right there in Unicorny's post:

...unless you are willing to defend the idea that the universe just popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing – a scientific and logical absurdity...

There's nothing absurd about that, and nothing at all contrary to science or to logic. How do we know that universes are sorts of things that need causes? We don't even understand what causation is within the universe.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The attempt to prove God's existence from the mere existence of the universe, on the basis that everything must have a cause (except God himself, for some reason), is obviously quite distinct from the attempt to prove God's existence from the nature of the universe, e.g. the fact that its laws are apparently "fine-tuned" for life. I don't think it's much better. The weak spot is right there in Unicorny's post:



There's nothing absurd about that, and nothing at all contrary to science or to logic. How do we know that universes are sorts of things that need causes? We don't even understand what causation is within the universe.

Interesting. In one post you managed to question possibility of Gods non-causation while you are perfectly willing to atribute the same to the universe itself. But technicaly these may be quite the same thing. After all its our counsciousness which is nothing separate from the universe which causes us to ponder these things...
I think this is true for many of us and it seem to be a bit of a psychological issue. We are simply sick of being indoctrinated by centuries of half-impotent or perverted religious dogmas so we are eager to have some detachment from it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Like I said, "uncaused cause" is a perfectly fine thing to get some dissonance over. You look at the giant stack of turtles, and your brain melts a bit when you try to figure out where the bottom is and what that even means. It's the definitive statement about the turtle directly below ours that's the problem, logically.

Is that any less true of gravitons than it is of anything which we use to explain the fundamental physics of the world at large? That's an honest question.

Well, physicists have experiments up that are looking for gravitons (well, gravity waves)*, but none of them have detected anything that's not better explained as background noise. So, they keep ratcheting up the sensitivity as new ideas occur to them.

It's not like electrons or DNA or whatever. We can solidly model those things and then run experiments to detect their presence. We're so confident that we don't even think in terms of 'disproving the null hypothesis' with them.

* "Jupiter-sized detectors"! We need to think big people, 'cause it's one of our Long Now potential futures . That said, we can actually individually help if we wanna

 

[Plotinus]

Interesting. In one post you managed to question possibility of Gods non-causation while you are perfectly willing to atribute the same to the universe itself.

I'm not questioning the possibility of God's non-causation. I'm pointing out the inconsistency of basing an argument for God's existence upon the supposed impossibility of the universe's existing uncaused while at the same time conceiving of God as uncaused. If one thing can exist uncaused then another can.

The claim of this argument is that the universe must have a cause, because everything does. But according to the same people, God doesn't have a cause. Yet clearly if you think that God can exist uncaused, you don't think that everything that exists must have a cause; in which case you have no basis for saying that the universe must do.

Schopenhauer said that proponents of this argument use the "everything must have a cause" principle like a hired cab: they stick with it until it gives them what they want (there is a God) and then jump off it before it becomes inconvenient (raises the question of what caused God).

 

[Gori the Grey]

Schopenhauer said that proponents of this argument use the "everything must have a cause" principle like a hired cab: they stick with it until it gives them what they want (there is a God) and then jump off it before it becomes inconvenient (raises the question of what caused God).

And, as I tried to point out in my posts, this is exactly how the fine-tuning argument uses the possibility-of-other-universes:

Fine-tuner (getting in the cab): “To see how astonishingly improbable it is that this universe is designed for life, imagine all the other possible universes where the physical constants had some other value than they do here, and where life therefore wouldn't have arisen. Therefore there must be a God who has designed this universe for life.”

Skeptic: “Well, as an alternate explanation, what if there are a bunch of alternate universes, and the question of the origin of life has just come up for us because we happen to inhabit the one with the settings appropriate to life?”

Fine-tuner (getting out of the cab): “A bunch of alternate universes? Now that’s just crazy talk. Invisible purple unicorn stuff.”

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I'm not questioning the possibility of God's non-causation. I'm pointing out the inconsistency of basing an argument for God's existence upon the supposed impossibility of the universe's existing uncaused while at the same time conceiving of God as uncaused. If one thing can exist uncaused then another can.

The difference between universe and God would be that universe is portion of infinite while God is the whole absolute. Therefore one is caused while the other isnt. I really dont see how else to solve this out. Either there was Absolutle Nothing in the beginning or Absolute All. Neither is particulary easy to define and becouse of our human consciousness we are bound to concieve of it according to our natural limitations. It doesnt really matter though becouse the fact that something like human consciousness could have taken root in this absolute is fascinating thing enough to make one wonder...

The claim of this argument is that the universe must have a cause, because everything does. But according to the same people, God doesn't have a cause. Yet clearly if you think that God can exist uncaused, you don't think that everything that exists must have a cause; in which case you have no basis for saying that the universe must do.

We think of the physical universe as something expanding but existing within the limits therefore naturally we look for the cause. While most think of God as something beyond limits.

Schopenhauer said that proponents of this argument use the "everything must have a cause" principle like a hired cab: they stick with it until it gives them what they want (there is a God) and then jump off it before it becomes inconvenient (raises the question of what caused God).

No it doesnt. Our minds are formed through evolution from the "finite stuff" therefore its nature is to incline to see and concieve of everything in a limited form. No matter how absurd it may sound to our mind true/original nature may as well be the very opposite....

 

[warpus]

Either there was Absolutle Nothing in the beginning or Absolute All.

You presume that there even was such a thing as "the beginning". Far too many assumptions in your statements here.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You presume that there even was such a thing as "the beginning". Far too many assumptions in your statements here.

Concerning the physical universe there was surely a beginning - big bang. Concerning of original Existence I dont think so....

 

[El_Machinae]

We can say the Universe has a beginning, but that really doesn't disprove the idea of it merely going through a phase change. Your lap appears and disappears frequently, and each new lap has a beginning as you sit. But this phase change doesn't suggest that the lap appeared from nothing.

 

[Funky]

Yes, but as others have said, those passages aren't about this topic at all. They're merely references to foetuses. Opponents of stem cell research may use these passages to support their position, but it's a huge leap from this to say either that the Bible takes a view on this matter or that those people have this view because of the Bible. Clearly they have this view for other reasons and then appeal to verses in the Bible that seem vaguely relevant in support of their view.

One might as well cite 3 John 2 in support of stem cell research. No-one really believes things of this nature as a result of reading the Bible.



You mean, I think, Gen. 38:9. But here again, no-one is opposed to contraception because of that verse. The passage isn't about contraception. It's not even claiming that God doesn't like sperm to get wasted. Onan is condemned because he fails to provide his dead brother with a child, according to ancient Near Eastern practice. Of course people who are opposed to contraception for other reasons may cite this verse as a sort of support for their view, but no-one would read this passage with a neutral view and develop, as a consequence, the idea that contraception is wrong. Catholics mainly rationalise their rejection of contraception by reference to Aristotelian principles about human ends. (Not that kind of end.)

And of course there is no "Christian position" on this. Most Christians don't have a problem with contraception.

Great, I managed to maneuver myself into an argument about the bible with a theologian.

First, let me point out that I am by no means claiming that the bible contains concrete instructions on the matters of stem cell research and contraception. The passages I refered to are the ones that in my experience Christian apologists cite when defending their opposition to these issues. I'll grant you that they can be interpreted differently, or that other passages actually support opposite views. The topics at hand seem fairly arbitrarily chosen by the apologists anyway - I don't know of anyone who opposes eating shellfish, for example, although God is much clearer on this matter than on the others.
Nevertheless, I think it's obvious that the passages the apologists refer to, however vague they may be, do, at the very least, serve as support for their positions on stem cells and contraception. If those passages didn't exist at all, there'd be much less controversy about these issues.

Second, it's clear that even if the bible isn't the only source, the opposition to stem cell research and contraception is a significant part of Christian theology. If it weren't so, we wouldn't be seeing legions of missionaries going into Africa and spreading the news that condomes are the work of the devil - which is genocidal stupidity, given that 3 million people die of aids every year in Africa. Many Christians are convinced that using condomes is immoral, all the way up to the pope himself.
Similarly with stem cells. It is widely thought among Christians that the soul does enter the zygote at the moment of conception. It is not just a coincedence that most opposers of stem cell research happen to be Christians. I don't know enough about the history of theology to say when and how these ideas became so virulent in the Christian doctrine. But they arrived there somehow, and Christians really believe that by doing what they are doing they are performing God's will.

To me it's patently obvious that people alluding to religious positions as a basis to organize and live their lives on, whether they are direct references to ancient holy books or the theological dogma that has developed over the centuries, is a massive impediment to moral and societal progress. The issue of stem cell research is interesting in this regard. Most moderate Christians reject the notion that being gay is a sin, despite the fact that the bible clearly states that it is - the hideousness and stupidity of this claim has just become too obvious. But the stem cell issue has shown that even initially benign beliefs, like the one about the soul entering the zygote - which many moderate Christians do hold - can turn out to be extremely consequential. This is why I believe that while religious moderation is a lot better than religious fundamentalism, the end-goal must be to overcome adherence to religious dogma alltogether and arrive in an open, 21st century conversation about how to live our lives and organize society. And before everyone jumps on me, I am not proposing laws against religion or penning up believers in concentration camps. I am merely advocating a new mode of discourse, in which we cease to honour and reward people for claiming things they cannot possibly know, and where rationalism and reason trump superstition.

 

[Borachio]

I think I might've mentioned it before in one of the Theologian threads, but the interpretation of the whole Onan thing I was taught (by a CoE...minister? I always forget which term refers to priests of which denomination), was that the punishment wasn't so much about the specific thing Onan did (or didn't), but beacuse he disobeyed a direct order from God. So the moral of the story is less "don't waste sperm" or "make sure you get your sister-in-law pregnant" and more "do what God says or else"

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.

 

[Funky]

I read those 4 examples, and just not finding those specific claims you are making. (...) If the Bible advocates slavery, then it is somewhat vague (...)

Dude, it's all there!

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Note how the fact that the master can keep the slave's family forever acts as a loop hole to freeing slaves - which slave would leave his master, knowing that his wife and children would remain in captivity?

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

I got this wrong when I said there was no punishment for a master beating his slave if he doesn't die in three days, it's actually just one or two days!

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

Where is this stuff vague?! The instructions given on beating slaves, owning their family, and raping female slaves are frighteningly concrete!

For any one who advocates that the modern work force is a choice and the employer does not own the employee, then people should stop complaining about the 1% who have all the money.

I'm totally with you on the unfairness of the distribution of wealth across the globe. But if you don't see the difference between that issue and slavery, I really don't know what to say.

 

[warpus]

Concerning the physical universe there was surely a beginning - big bang. Concerning of original Existence I dont think so....

Like you allude to - big bang theory clearly points to a beginning to the universe that we live in. That much is clear. Anything else we just don't know. The observable universe might be in a larger existence that has had a beginning, or hasn't, maybe a multiverse, or an infinite universe, or.. something else entirely. We don't know. All we know is that the observable universe seems to have began with the big bang.

But the physical/non-physical distinction you make is not present in any form in physics... which I suppose you might then say that physics is designed to deal with the physical - and sure, but if that's what you mean by "physical", then I'l have to remind you that we're talking about the big bang theory - a subject in many ways related to physics.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

To me it's patently obvious that people alluding to religious positions as a basis to organize and live their lives on, whether they are direct references to ancient holy books or the theological dogma that has developed over the centuries, is a massive impediment to moral and societal progress. The issue of stem cell research is interesting in this regard. Most moderate Christians reject the notion that being gay is a sin, despite the fact that the bible clearly states that it is - the hideousness and stupidity of this claim has just become too obvious. But the stem cell issue has shown that even initially benign beliefs, like the one about the soul entering the zygote - which many moderate Christians do hold - can turn out to be extremely consequential. This is why I believe that while religious moderation is a lot better than religious fundamentalism, the end-goal must be to overcome adherence to religious dogma alltogether and arrive in an open, 21st century conversation about how to live our lives and organize society. And before everyone jumps on me, I am not proposing laws against religion or penning up believers in concentration camps. I am merely advocating a new mode of discourse, in which we cease to honour and reward people for claiming things they cannot possibly know, and where rationalism and reason trump superstition.

Not sure, I think is on case by case basis. Just take two religion-free ideologies of 20th century: nazism and communism. There is some rationalism in both of them yet what a mess, right?
There is much truth in religions and to give it all up would be an act of stupidity. Its only when we allow these truths to be something superficial only and when we let the inner reality disapears out of them when they become a dogma and a bondage.

 

[timtofly]

Where is this stuff vague?! The instructions given on beating slaves, owning their family, and raping female slaves are frighteningly concrete!

About as vague as throwing four different chapters from the Bible out there and expecting mine own interpretation to provide the proof I requested. If it is concrete, then put the words in quotes as proof.

 

[Borachio]

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

 

[Funky]

Not sure, I think is on case by case basis. Just take two religion-free ideologies of 20th century: nazism and communism. There is some rationalism in both of them yet what a mess, right?

National Socialism and Stalinist communism both had very little to do with reason and rationalism. These regimes were dogmatic to the core and gave rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Concentration camps and gulags are not examples of what happens when humans become too reasonable. They are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

There is much truth in religions and to give it all up would be an act of stupidity. Its only when we allow these truths to be something superficial only and when we let the inner reality disapears out of them when they become a dogma and a bondage.

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.

 

[Tahuti]

National Socialism and Stalinist communism both had very little to do with reason and rationalism. These regimes were dogmatic to the core and gave rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Concentration camps and gulags are not examples of what happens when humans become too reasonable. They are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

Sam Harris, is that you?

 

[Funky]

Sam Harris, is that you?

Nope. Though that bit was indeed inspired by him.