The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[El_Machinae]

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.

We tend to 'read in' design as well. In the end, biology follows fairly simple physical laws. A streambed looks 'designed' to carry water from the rain down a slope, and some people will boggle at how each water molecule knows exactly where to go. But, this isn't really the right way of looking at it. That an eye can see is no more designed than a streambed.

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.

It's true. Part of the theist's problem is actually our sheer fatigue. The argument is basically the same argument as Paley's Eye. We're not impressed with the Universal Fine-Tuning, because we just recall when some other more proximate phenomenon was used to make the same conclusion.

So, it might be that the Fine-Tuning argument is true. The people who're too impressed by it, though, are failing to impress those who've seen it before.

 

[Kyriakos]

It isn't. As Flying Pig said, the mere fact that something is good at something doesn't mean it was designed for that purpose. Our cat loves playing with ear plugs but they certainly weren't designed as cat toys, they just happen to have features that attract cats (or at least our cat).

In the case of organisms, the theory of evolution by natural selection explains extremely well and thoroughly why they have features that are well suited to their survival. This being so, there's no need to invoke "intelligence" as an additional explanation. It's already adequately explained.

It would/might if ear-plugs were bio matter and evolved in an environment having cats ^^

And as you know, intelligent can acquire very different meaning if it is not equated to human notions of something tied to something else.

I often argued against the likelyhood of a god being there if said god is by and large a super-powerful humanoid.

 

[warpus]

That is still viewing God as defined by past humanity. Humans cannot define God at all. God can only be revealed by God.

Sure, that's one good reason to reject all religions as truth. But I don't really get what you're trying to get at with this line of thinking.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It isn't. As Flying Pig said, the mere fact that something is good at something doesn't mean it was designed for that purpose. Our cat loves playing with ear plugs but they certainly weren't designed as cat toys, they just happen to have features that attract cats (or at least our cat).

In the case of organisms, the theory of evolution by natural selection explains extremely well and thoroughly why they have features that are well suited to their survival. This being so, there's no need to invoke "intelligence" as an additional explanation. It's already adequately explained.

I have no problem saying something was designed through natural selection. Once existence of life enters picture as opposed to just mineral formations you are much more strongly facing prospects of purpose. How come life forms doesnt carry with it the apparent unconsciousness of matter? Well it does of course but only to a point. Then we start to see instinctive behaviour which has emerged out of pure unconsciousness! Finaly we cant behave as stones, we cant behave like animals, we are forced to behave like humans. But if matter is our source how come we are willing to accept this game? Its either absurd of us or there is something else with justifies this movement of evolution...
...

 

[warpus]

How come life forms doesnt carry with it the apparent unconsciousness of matter?

Because the "purpose" of life is to reproduce and seed its DNA as efficiently as possible. In some cases life has evolved a central nervous system to help it achieve that purpose. In others - such as in the case of trees and other plants - I don't think there is anything remotely resembling or approaching consciousness. So you can't say that all life is conscious.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Aquinas (and indeed most Christian tradition) thinks that the universe is dependent on, but not identical with, God.

You called the line blurry (between Pantheism and Aquinas' view). Can you explain? The Jonathan Edwards view you mentioned for example seems more to me like we are God's dreams (the "holodeck" example would make us seem more like puppets). I mentioned dreams v. puppets because this seemed to be the principle way to distinguish the views, but you did not seem to embrace that way of perceiving it.

I think the answer is more likely to be "love"...[snipped]... So the fact that human beings are a very tiny part of creation isn't really important

What you seem to be saying then, again, sticking to the Fine-Tuning theme, is if God wanted to have some human (pets/children/whatever) to love, care for and observe etc, within a perfectly functioning, self sustaining system, then God couldn't just whip up a landmass in a "bowl" and set it on his "desk."

God would have to create the entire universe as we know it in order to create the system that would eventually, through natural "designed" processes produce the target world, Earth. Similar to the way the Manhattan Project involved building whole towns/facilities in order to develop just a tiny amount of nuclear material for the A-bomb.

It seems another way of looking at it would be if you want to raise a family in a house you built then there are a huge number of things needed to do to make that happen. Actually having children is one, but before that you also need to build the house that can sustain your family. Building the house means you need a really big hole in the ground, but to make the hole you need a bulldozer, etc, etc on and on...

So if the entire Universe is a Finely-Tuned machine/incubator to produce humans by a "perfect" designer, then it seems that there should be no superfluous components. The only things present in the Universe should be exactly what was needed to bring us into existence (and maybe also give us some pretty stuff in the sky to look at). Does this standard make sense? Does our universe fit this standard?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Because the "purpose" of life is to reproduce and seed its DNA as efficiently as possible. In some cases life has evolved a central nervous system to help it achieve that purpose. In others - such as in the case of trees and other plants - I don't think there is anything remotely resembling or approaching consciousness. So you can't say that all life is conscious.

Reproduce? Why? No bro, thats assumption of too much of an inteligence in a completely uniteligent universe.

 

[warpus]

Reproduce? Why? No bro, thats assumption of too much of an inteligence in a completely uniteligent universe.

RNA was the first thing on this planet that had a "mission" of reproduction, as far as I know. DNA exists for the same purpose.

It's not an assumption, that's literally what DNA does.

 

[Domen]

(...) the "purpose" of life is to reproduce and seed its DNA as efficiently as possible. In some cases life has evolved a central nervous system to help it achieve that purpose (...)

Evolving the ability to waste time on internet fora does not help in efficient reproduction!

Especially when a forum is dominated by one sex, like this one. Something is wrong with this evolution.

The only things present in the Universe should be exactly what was needed to bring us into existence (and maybe also give us some pretty stuff in the sky to look at). Does this standard make sense? Does our universe fit this standard?

Such a universe would be very boring, don't you think? There would nothing interesting to do apart from reproducing. And now, since we have a more complex universe, we can also discuss philosophical aspects of it, wasting some time which could otherwise be used for reproduction, eating, or other useful things.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Evolving the ability to waste time on internet fora does not help in efficient reproduction!

Especially when a forum is dominated by one sex, like this one. Something is wrong with this evolution.

Luckily our inteligence itsnt completely identical with whatever drives DNA into action.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

RNA was the first thing on this planet that had a "mission" of reproduction, as far as I know. DNA exists for the same purpose.

It's not an assumption, that's literally what DNA does.

What I mean is rock do not need to reproduce so whats wrong with life? If there is no purpose in reproduction then how come all life just spins around it?

 

[Domen]

That is still viewing God as defined by past humanity. Humans cannot define God at all. God can only be revealed by God.

Sure, that's one good reason to reject all religions as truth.

Yes. However, it seems that all religions share at least some common elements / features.

 

[Perfection]

Evolving the ability to waste time on internet fora does not help in efficient reproduction!

Especially when a forum is dominated by one sex, like this one. Something is wrong with this evolution.



Such a universe would be very boring, don't you think? There would nothing interesting to do apart from reproducing. And now, since we have a more complex universe, we can also discuss philosophical aspects of it, wasting some time which could otherwise be used for reproduction, eating, or other useful things.

Being adept at philosophical conversations has gotten me action, home cooking, and other useful things.

 

[warpus]

What I mean is rock do not need to reproduce so whats wrong with life? If there is no purpose in reproduction then how come all life just spins around it?

So you're basically asking: "Why is life different from non-life" ?

I don't know what you mean by "there is no purpose in reproduction"

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So you're basically asking: "Why is life different from non-life" ?

I don't know what you mean by "there is no purpose in reproduction"

Well can you talk about a purpose without some kind of inteligence involved?

 

[Perfection]

If there is no purpose in reproduction then how come all life just spins around it?

Because life that's not good at reproduction doesn't get reproduced.

 

[Borachio]

It's a kind of sine qua non, I take it.

Still, it's a bit of a mystery why some molecules bother to reproduce themselves, when they could be idling about in the soup doing nothing.

I expect they don't have any choice in the matter.

 

[Perfection]

Choice requires foresight. Evolution has none.

 

[warpus]

Well can you talk about a purpose without some kind of inteligence involved?

Maybe "purpose" was the wrong word. I am merely talking about the goals of the organism/whatever - what it will strive to do.

I am not talking about a purpose that was designed, but rather one that arose out of existing laws of the universe.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Choice requires foresight. Evolution has none.

Evolution has non but a product of evolution can have it? Am I missing something?