The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[El_Machinae]

But math is what helps us show that the god of the Bible doesn't exist! God created the tools that allow us to deny false gods?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But math is what helps us show that the god of the Bible doesn't exist! God created the tools that allow us to deny false gods?

I am curious. How so?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I am curious. How so?

I pointed this out to in my last post but you ignored it. In short, using the cosmological constant to establish God as the originator of the Big Bang removes God from the physical realm and thus the virgin birth, and sacrifice etc.

I asked you directly how does fine tuning prove Christianity is correct but you did not or could not answer.

 

[Tigranes]

No, God is beneath math for even He cannot make 2+2=5.


Math is everything and everything is math.

Don't be dogmatic . Even mortal men can define such numbers that q*q=0, and then, hundred years later, this can find an application in quantum field theory. Not even all the associative algebras are typically assumed to have a multiplicative unit, denoted 1. So, this is in general. In particular math is not compassion, for example, and compassion is not math. And finally, in the most common sense terms, you need something and some thing definite and to count it in a first place. If I add emptiness of my jar to the emptiness of your jar, would you be in possession of 2 emptinesses while my jar will no longer be empty?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I pointed this out to in my last post but you ignored it. In short, using the cosmological constant to establish God as the originator of the Big Bang removes God from the physical realm and thus the virgin birth, and sacrifice etc.

I asked you directly how does fine tuning prove Christianity is correct but you did not or could not answer.

Sorry but I have zero knowledge regarded cosmological constants and such. Heck I dont even have opinion regarded fine tuning. But I dont see how viewing God as originator would diminish it or remove him from anything at all.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If I add emptiness of my jar to the emptiness of your jar, would you be in possession of 2 emptinesses while my jar will no longer be empty?

Well yes if we assume that for the sake of discussion his jar is somehow "magically" able to double in volume to accommodate twice as much of a volume of a vacuum. And of course your jar would now be full of something, presumably air, because the only way you could theoretically "remove the emptiness" of your jar would be to fill it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am curious. How so?

We use math and science to absolve God of the Bible's libel

 

[Perfection]

Either that or that you are above limitation...

If we don't presume truth doesn't contradict truth we can't understand anything.

So what is the mathematical description of compassion or empathy?

They're computational processes.

Empathy might be described as the process of simulating the mental processes of others.

Compassion might be described as how one weighs one's calculation of the desires of others relative to one's own desires in decision making.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If we don't presume ...

I think truth contains logic but itsnt contained by it.

 

[Plotinus]

You are misleading modern readers by asserting finite nature of Origen's God. As always, situation is more complicated.

Origen's God cannot be known to us in his essence! It is not by his ousia, or essence, but by his dunamis, or power, that he acts upon other beings or brings them into beings.

I think that's anachronistic. Origen identifies God's dunamis with the Son. He lacks the concept of an unknowable ousia distinct from the dunamis. It was Gregory of Nyssa who would develop this distinction, together with the claim that God's essence is unknowable and that God's dunam[e]is is/are some kind of knowable "projection" of God that acts on human beings. For Origen, God's essence is unknowable at least in this life, because of our limited understanding, but there's nothing intrinsically unknowable about it, and he thought that ultimately all created souls would be re-united to God and know his essence perfectly. For Origen, as for most Middle Platonists, God is fundamentally knowable and his knowability is one of his perfections. It was only with Gregory of Nyssa and later thinkers that this would change.

It is clear at least that Origen's God creates the world from nothing and without toil or opposition. Because Origen asserts that such a world will inevitably be finite, as God himself cannot comprehend the infinite, Origen was later accused of slighting the omnipotence of the Creator. His meaning, however, is not that there are limits to the power of God, but that any particular exercise of it must logically have some limit. For Origen, the infinite is by nature incomprehensible; hence it is no shortcoming in God that he cannot comprehend it, and he remains omnipotent in the sense that there is no finite enterprise that lies beyond his power.

Origen was later accused of limiting God's knowledge, not his power. He argues in First Principles III.5.2 that the world cannot be infinite in duration, because if it were, God couldn't know it, which is intolerable; evidently he assumes that God's knowledge cannot be infinite (see also II.9.1). This assumption is made explicit in Justinian's later accusations against Origen, as formulated in his letter to Mennas of Constantinople, which on this score at least are probably accurate because the idea seems to be entailed even by Rufinus' version of Origen's text. For Origen, God's finitude is actually the main premise in his argument for the finitude of the world.

We are going in circles here. Again what are "these claims"? I broke down situation to you, step by step, and demonstrated that religious people do not attack science as long it stays in the realm of science. The moment you repeat after Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be" you go far beyond the realm of science. Available evidence precludes as from making any scientific statements about "ever" -- I mean the Cosmos itself was not around for ever, but just measly 13.7 billion years! Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

It's unclear to me what you're arguing here. I think the thread's rather gone off-topic. It's meant to be about the fine-tuning argument, which is an attempt to use scientific discoveries as evidence for God's existence. So that's doing precisely what you warn against here, and applying Caesar's things to God. If you're objecting to people trying to use science to disprove God's existence, well, that's not really what we're talking about. Those of us who have argued against the fine-tuning argument aren't arguing against God's existence. We're just saying that this attempt to support the claim that God exists doesn't work.

Gods very existence contradicts the logic. For Gods omnipotence lies in being in many different places at once. Existence of this world is a paradox too. How can whole perfect God create limited world? These contradictions doesnt declare God insufficiency rather the opposite.

That's not the traditional, orthodox view of God. God is usually thought to be constrained by logic and cannot do anything impossible. Divine omnipotence means simply that God can do anything possible, and he isn't constrained by location; it doesn't mean he is himself literally located everywhere.

I pointed this out to in my last post but you ignored it. In short, using the cosmological constant to establish God as the originator of the Big Bang removes God from the physical realm and thus the virgin birth, and sacrifice etc.

To argue on the other side for a moment, I've never thought that arguments of this kind are very strong. If God is outside the physical realm I don't see why that precludes him from doing things in the physical realm if he wants to. If God is omnipotent, he doesn't have to literally be present to cause an effect - it's sufficient for him to will it.

Causation is an inherently mysterious thing even at the most mundane level. I don't think we know nearly enough about either physics or metaphysics to be able to lay down hard and fast rules about what any extra-physical entity, let alone one with the attributes God is supposed to have, could or could not cause.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sorry but I have zero knowledge regarded cosmological constants and such. Heck I dont even have opinion regarded fine tuning. But I dont see how viewing God as originator would diminish it or remove him from anything at all.

My mistake, I mixed you up with Tigranes. He was the one I posed the question to.

It's unclear to me what you're arguing here. I think the thread's rather gone off-topic. It's meant to be about the fine-tuning argument, which is an attempt to use scientific discoveries as evidence for God's existence. So that's doing precisely what you warn against here, and applying Caesar's things to God. If you're objecting to people trying to use science to disprove God's existence, well, that's not really what we're talking about. Those of us who have argued against the fine-tuning argument aren't arguing against God's existence. We're just saying that this attempt to support the claim that God exists doesn't work.

I will add that I agree (a perfect example is MechanicalSal's statement above that he has no opinion on Fine-Tuning) that we are off topic, but also that some of us (me at least) are trying to understand if anyone can extend the Fine Tuning argument to justify religion, and more specifically any particular religion, and even more specifically, Christianity. Otherwise, what is the point of "proving" the existence of God?

To argue on the other side for a moment, I've never thought that arguments of this kind are very strong. If God is outside the physical realm I don't see why that precludes him from doing things in the physical realm if he wants to. If God is omnipotent, he doesn't have to literally be present to cause an effect - it's sufficient for him to will it.

You are correct (at least in my view), that an omnipotent God can act both inside and outside of the system. However, my point is more about evaluating the perfection of the system, and by extension the perfection of God. Because God's perfection is the primary justification for God's sovereignty, putting aside pure-force.

If God can design a system externally that functions perfectly, then there is no need for God to "enter" the system to act directly on it. Once God does that, perfection is undermined. Why was intervention necessary in a "perfect" system? Now if we say something along the lines of "Man screwed things with his imperfect decisions" thus necessitating the flood, plagues, etc., OK fine, maybe, but shouldn't a "perfect" system be able to recover from these tamperings on its own? Didn't God "foresee" the "human error" factor and design the system to compensate automatically? If not, then we aren't really talking about a "perfect" system are we? It's more like God is the Landlord of a Money Pit.

 

[Perfection]

I think truth contains logic but itsnt contained by it.

You don't accept that Truth doesn't contradict Truth?

 

[Perfection]

Don't be dogmatic . Even mortal men can define such numbers that q*q=0, and then, hundred years later, this can find an application in quantum field theory.

What numbers? (other than 0) Are you sure you're not confusing * for a cross product of quaternions? Because the cross product of anything and itself is zero.

Now you say there might be some form of math where 2+2=5 may be valid. However i think that's mostly a technical difficulty. We could restate the question of can God make 2+2=5 to can God make 2+2=5 follow from Peano axioms?

Anyway see my other post regarding compassion.

 

[Tigranes]

What numbers? (other than 0) Are you sure you're not confusing * for a cross product of quaternions? Because the cross product of anything and itself is zero.

Someone who idolizes math surely needs to know about Grassmann numbers.

 

[Perfection]

Someone who idolizes math surely needs to know about Grassmann numbers.

Cool stuff! I'll have to take a closer look.

Thanks.

 

[Tigranes]

Well yes if we assume that for the sake of discussion his jar is somehow "magically" able to double in volume

I say common sense and you say if we assume for the sake of discussion jar is magically able. This is the very reason why productive discussion is so difficult here. People basically see themselves as us vs them, with 'us" team even electing their informal leader . You are eager to contradict me no matter what I say, because I don't fit in your "camp" , not because of the essence of what I say. You want us to argue now if 0+0=0, or 0+0=2*0? No, thanks.

 

[uppi]

Your problem is your overconfidence and your prejudice based on religious affiliation of your opponent. So far you did not back up yourself with a single quote from a graduate level textbook, what makes you think I never looked in any of those? Unlike many people in this thread I am not supporting my statements by the qualifications of my person, but by the sources such as Encyclopedias. For all you know I might be teaching guys almost like you using those textbooks.

No, from your posts I can tell that you are not. Otherwise you should be able to argue more clearly about these things. And the qualifications of encyclopedias of all things are not exactly stellar. If you want a citation: Nielsen/Chuang, the chapter about measurements, in particular those about generalized measurements and POVM measurements.

[statements about non-determinism that are besides the point]

In addition there is also a measurement problem, which describes that the very act of measurement in general destroys the target quantum state you were trying to observe. You always observe particle with a spin up, or with a spin down, while before the observation particle could have been in quantum superposition of those two states.

Wrong. I only observe a particle with spin up or spin down, when I measure along the z-axis. But no-one forces me to do that. Using the free-will assumption, I can measure along any other axis and can for example measure spin-left or spin-right. Both of these states are superposition states of spin-up and spin-down. If the particle is in the spin-left state, i.e. a superposition state, and I chose to measure along the correct axis, I can measure this superposition state with a probability of 1, without destroying the state.

We are going in circles here. Again what are "these claims"? I broke down situation to you, step by step, and demonstrated that religious people do not attack science as long it stays in the realm of science.

Yeah, right, you talk like Creationism is not a thing.

I agree with this difference. But in practice in the minds of people there is also an overlap between this two positions. It seems very logical for many students to connect the dots and arrive to conclusion that intelligently designed evolution is oxymoron.

When they draw their conclusions like this on their own, what exactly is the problem?

Of course I did not. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God. If we have a Father who art in Heaven, he would certainly know how to use "religious people" such as fisherman Peter to pass His Message across the world and across the centuries.

I agree, but I was not making the claim that faith has nothing to do with religious people.

 

[Perfection]

I view the productivity of a discussion by how much it makes people think outside their normal thoughts not if anyone gets converted.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I say common sense and you say if we assume for the sake of discussion jar is magically able. This is the very reason why productive discussion is so difficult here. People basically see themselves as us vs them, with 'us" team even electing their informal leader . You are eager to contradict me no matter what I say, because I don't fit in your "camp" , not because of the essence of what I say. You want us to argue now if 0+0=0, or 0+0=2*0? No, thanks.

Teams? Camps? At this moment I am in another 2 threads arguing points in favor of the position that a person of faith might argue. You feel attacked because some few don't agree with everything you say and then become oversensitive.

Please go back and look at what I asked you. I say clearly that I was willing to accept the existence of God so that we can just talk reasonably instead of arguing over everything at the same time, but again you ignored me. It seems you are the one who only responds to contradict me and say "no thanks I don't want to talk"

In any case I wanted to talk about something specific related to how "Fine tuning" can prove Christianity correct.

 

[Perfection]

Wrong. I only observe a particle with spin up or spin down, when I measure along the z-axis. But no-one forces me to do that. Using the free-will assumption, I can measure along any other axis and can for example measure spin-left or spin-right. Both of these states are superposition states of spin-up and spin-down. If the particle is in the spin-left state, i.e. a superposition state, and I chose to measure along the correct axis, I can measure this superposition state with a probability of 1, without destroying the state.

isn't that interpretation dependent though? Couldn't one view the apparent superposition state as a convenient fiction and that the particle is actually behaving differently?