Fine Tuning Argument
The popular fine-tuning argument posits that a sentient designer necessarily created the universe because so many factors must be set perfectly for our universe to exist (and to contain life). The science behind the argument is correct, slight changes in factors such as the strength of the fundamental forces, the speed of light, etc. would make our universe impossible.
A key thing to understand in the argument for fine tuning is that the particular state that is our universe is as likely as any other potential universe. If these factors vary, a different universe would result. A minor variation in a single factor can be the difference between interesting cosmological bodies (and possibly biological bodies) and a homogeneous blob of gas.
Largely, the fine-tuning argument is an argument from incredulity. It is difficult to imagine how —of all the potential universes— we lucked out to have one that enabled us to exist. This anthropocentric perspective leads one to presume the universe was made to host us — that our particular universe was intended and thus the 'dials' were set precisely to ensure we would exist. And, of course, if our universe was intended then there must be a designer (so goes the argument).
You are Fine-tuned
Inconceivable possibilities happen routinely, we just do not notice. For example, consider the probability that you, rather than one of your virtual siblings, is the lucky one to be conceived. The probability that any of us exists now is extremely, unbelievably low:
Each month your mother had an entirely different egg. Different egg, different person. A woman produces about 300-400 eggs in her reproductive lifetime. Thus you are the unique result of a particular sperm and a particular egg. That egg can only be fertilized for about 24 hours. So your parents had to hit that 24 hour window in the month and at that time, your father could provide between 30 million and ½ billion sperm cells. That means for each egg, there could be as many as ½ billion potential individuals. For you to be conceived, your particular egg and your particular sperm had to be the lucky pair. The probability that you were conceived instead of one of your potential full siblings (none of whom made it by the way) is between 1 in 9 billion (30 million times 300 eggs) and 1 in 200 billion (½ billion times 400 eggs).
Right off the bat, you are at least a 1 in 9 billion oddity (and could be even a 1 in 200 billion oddity). You won out over 9-200 billion of your virtual siblings. Consider the fine-tuning required to set the dials so that your egg and your sperm would pair up.
It Gets Better
Each of your parents is also the result of precise fine-tuning. If any of their other billions of potential full siblings were conceived instead of your parents, you would have 0% chance of being conceived. If your father had not won, you do not exist. If your mother had not won, you do not exist. And we can skip the additional probability of life happening in such a way that your parents meet and hit it off. With your parents factored in, you are now between 1 in 729 billion and 1 in 8 quadrillion. Imagine if we considered your grandparents.
This increases exponentially. As we move through your entire lineage for hundreds of generations, imagine just how amazingly fine-tuned things had to be for you to exist. But you are here. And if things had changed just a tiny, tiny little bit, another individual might be here in your place marveling at how fine-tuned the dials were set for her to exist.
So yes, we are very fortunate that our universe is the winner of the existential lottery. A minor variation in any of the factors and maybe some other life form would be here instead marveling at how fine-tuned its universe had to be for it to exist.
Tags
Who is online
431 visitors
'Fine-tuning' is rather common.
The universe is evolving. It's evolving us too. What governs the evolution of the universe?
The properties of particles. This question is for another article.
1. Is the above fine-tuning or a statement about survival of the fittest? Or, are you making some fine distinction?
2. Since you brought it up: The properties of particles? Do particles "run" or "govern" nature?
The above is an example in real life that illustrates the inconceivably low probability that any of us are conceived. It is a mathematical example.
Particles are nature in our universe (as far as we can tell). If we identify with confidence something below particles (e.g. strings) then I will answer with that. For example, I could offer that the universe functions based on the properties of strings.
We continue to be entirely off topic.
What?!
What, specifically, do you not understand?
Do you not consider the probability of 1 out of 8 quadrillion to be tiny? And that only considers the parents. The probability decreases exponentially with each generation. So, again, what specifically do you not understand here?
If either of the two had 'lost,' the rest is moot. So what are you talking about? The irony is, as you pigeon-hole this discussion more and more, the harder it is to know where/what/who is your point! For me anyway. I'm out.
I have no idea why these two sentences confuse you. But since you are out, I guess we are done.
I get the argument, but it's based on the, "we are the only life in the universe", and let's be honest, a star 30 LY away could have a thriving civilization and we would not know it. I firmly believe that there is life in the universe and almost certainly in our own galaxy given the size and number of stars. Other than the Earth, we are fairly certain that life did exist on Mars, in some form, so there are two planets that on a cosmic scale are literally spitting distance apart, that have/had life on it. It is to me, IMHO, almost impossible that life doesn't exist in other places.
So that leads me here:
Was the universe created just for us, or someone else and we are an afterthought, or was it all just random chance? I am going with random chance.
No offense, but you don't get the argument. The argument isn't that we are the only life in the universe. The argument is that this universe, the only one we know of and seems tailor made for life, could not randomly happen.
And here i thought Jeanie just squinted and blinked her eyes,
they were red,
and she was always living out of that bottle, neck was firm etc.
sorry pontificators of deep thought, a little levity never dulled logical explanations of infinitly numerouse explanations, as to these questions set forth to ponder, so don't mind me, grabbin my fishing rod and as spell i will cast, like an itchy knows it all,
twinklin like a little star, but right now, gotta grab Derr Wood, and rub Styx together till i hear a big Bang
n the fish float up like a Universal smoking Parade of possibilities,
Maces all our blind eyes yearning to see the truth of it all
that we are only a speck
u lation away from knowing, no ?
all apologies, wipe away good evening to you fine citizens, accept sugar
Gotta say, you're one of the most interesting characters in this place. Mostly because I often don't have a clue as to what universe you live in, but it's always interesting. I could wish the industry would give you a pile of money to make a film. Whatever you wanted to make. I think it would likely start a new religion.
The clue about which universe...? let me check a piece of mail and get back to you.
I don't plan on paying back a lone, so no interest required, but i'm glad you might have had one acquired.
I assure you, i will keep clickin my heels on YOUR wish
Whatever huh, infinite definite infinity's and B e y o n d
I would wish not to start a New Religion, cause i've seen Bad Religion
at a sold out show once
and
do not wish to control the masses via catching pitchers crashing through
closet walls, in an attempt to come out, about , whom people really are, asz, i
would prefer we all just got along, and did the things that make everyone the happiest they could be, but without infringing on any others Happy ways and means committees for these daze,
cause
"i've been dazed and
confuzed, for so long " as i can't remember and don't recall, in fact, i have no memory, no memory at tall for my short term got over extended Goals, that have not a keeper, which i toss back
a cold one, 2 many,
and ponder:
Does a bear $hit in the woods...
or only at the Zoo.................... ?
Exactly. This whole seeded idea came from a post I made on Kathleen’s question seed on this very issue.
The main problem I find with this theory is that the universe we find ourselves is definitely NOT tailor made for us. Our species has been trying to survive on this hostile planet for millennia and only recently have we extended our average life spans through science and medicine. Before that humans life expectancy was in the low 50's at best. And that's the planet we're on, when you look at the rest of the universe it is a veritable death sentence just about anywhere else that we know of so far.
If this planet and universe were actually designed for us and we didn't happen to evolve and adapt to it you would think it would be less deadly for humans. If we were designed for this universe, don't you think we'd be built more like a tardigrade that can even survive in temperatures as high as 304 degrees or as cold as -458 degrees?
Through adaptation and evolution we have made our environments less hostile for humans (though in the process we may be making the planet eventually uninhabitable). We've invented medicines that can treat the most common infectious diseases that used to kill hundreds of thousands. We've sterilized our human habitats making our homes and neighborhoods easier to survive within for humans, mostly eliminating the threat from environmental effects, dangerous insects and animals. So when people imagine this planet as being custom made for humans, it was customized by humans and our ancestors would no doubt vehemently disagree considering how much of their lives they had to spend just to survive.
Exactly what? Read what Drakk wrote @2.1 and compare it to what you just wrote. Your comment makes no sense in reply to what he wrote.
Also, this is an article, not a seed.
But yes, I wrote this article rather than include all of this in my reply to you. Is that in some way problematic?
I get your point, but you forget who I am and what I believe. In my opinion, the objections you list are due to our falling away from God. Had we not, none of your objections would exist.
This universe and planet are proofs of our ability to thrive here, because we exist on it - despite our limited physical stature and statuses. The most important trait seems to be promulgation (making copies) of self. That continues the ability to exist here and to prosper. Now then, should mankind ever stop its nonsensical conflicts and wars - collectively it is possible to leap forward exponentially in thought and processes. That is, it is not the universe which is doing us a disservice, but mankind itself.
Brilliant !!~
So you believe all the things on this planet that are deadly to humans wouldn't exist if if Adam hadn't eaten the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad Eve supposedly gave him? We'd be immune to extreme hot and cold, we wouldn't die from dehydration or freeze to death during extreme blizzards?
Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is most likely the right one. Seeing how evolution works and even being able to watch it work in viruses and bacteria shows us that the premise for evolution is sound. I believe adaptation and evolution is a far simpler solution to why we survive and now thrive on this planet. Inventing a grand designer, one that by definition must inherently be trillions of times more complex than ourselves, that there is absolutely zero empirical evidence of, just to explain why we survive and thrive on this planet, seems like an extremely complex solution, not the simplest. Sure, it's simple for simple minded folk to just say "God did it", but is that really accepting all that would have to be true for their simple explanation to actually be accurate?
Claiming that the holes easily poked in the theory like the fact that the planet is not really well designed for human life and we've had to adapt it to meet our needs (it's certainly not the terrarium any pet owner would want to put their pets if they cared about them) can just be explained by saying humans had a "falling away from God" seems like more than a stretch.
On one hand you're saying this universe was designed for us because we now thrive on this planet, therefore, God. But then almost immediately you accept that the universe is actually trying to kill us, but only because said God is mad at us. You can't have it both ways. Either our ability to survive means a designer made all this for us and is proof of a loving designer, or the real dangers to humanity around every corner are evidence that there is no designer, or at worst a designer intent on wiping us off the face of the planet.
"5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” - Genesis 6:5-7
Sounds like one confused designer.
That isn't the way I would put it. As to whether they would exist, I cannot say. I can only say that God would protect us from such if they did.
Which, in my opinion, isn't useful for this topic. Occam basically said that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. What could be simpler than saying "God did it?"
No. The argument is that, given the number of variables necessary for the existence of life as we know it, it is improbable that it is by chance. One does not begin with God and then calculate the probability of the universe we observe. One calculates the probability of this universe and then concludes God.
Not exactly right. If you tell your child not to touch the burners on your stove but touching the burners is still possible for your child, it wouldn't be correct to say your stove is purposely trying to burn your child or that you are mad at your child because you allow a household where burns are possible.
Or like a Designer that allowed His creation to try it it's own way and see what resulted.
It's simple, but it's a copout.
Where did God come from?
Why would any god be so petty as to torture humans (and animals and plants) for their entire lives, because it was pissed of at one person thousands of years ago?
Something like that would fit the definition of "evil" perfectly.
Occam said that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions was probably right. "God did it" requires a pretty big assumption.
True, but once you've made that assumption, no thinking or logic is required. It's intellectually lazy, of course.
Yes! That is the fine-tuning argument. It does not assume that God exists. It states that our particular universe is very unlikely to be the one that exists given all the possible alternate configurations of the factors of physics. The argument then goes on to spuriously conclude that our universe was intentionally designed and thus the existence of a designer (God).
The flaw in the argument is the failure to realize that all possible universes based on varying the factors of physics are equally improbable but the probability that one universe (even if just a blob of gas) would exist is 100%. (The probability of you winning the lottery is low but the probability that someone will win is 100%.) If a different universe had emerged there might be silicon-based creatures marveling at how fine-tuned is their improbable universe and concluding that a designer made the universe just for them.
Like I said, saying "God did it" sounds simple, but in actuality it would require accepting the most complicated explanation we've ever encountered for it to be true. Those three little words imply something far far more complex than evolution and adaptation. It would require a far more complex entity with powers that break all the physical laws of the universe that science has been carefully studying. An entity that would necessarily require being the only thing in the universe with no beginning and no end which is a completely foreign concept in terms of our universe in which everything has a cycle of existence, even the brightest stars will eventually burn out.
But you refuse to apply that same logic to the very idea of God. To believe in God one must necessarily abandon logic and reason since it would require an even great number of variables to have such an inherently complex mover.
Why do you skip over calculating the probability of God? Why does it seem logical to some to calculate the odds of life evolving and coming up with near impossible low probabilities due to our complexity and then conclude we must have been created by an even more complex entity? It would be like finding a rudimentary stick with a stone tied to the top as a primitive hammer and concluding it was constructed by a computer with a 3D printer.
If the planet were just full of passive dangers you might have a point. As it is, this planet has been actively trying to kill humans with dangerous animals, insects, disease and exposure to the elements. We've had to struggle and learn how to survive, not just stay away from a passive danger.
So we're to believe in an omniscient being who didn't have a beginning created some creatures on a planet and knew what the outcome would be but when they did exactly what he knew they would do, regretted making them and decided to wipe out all but 8 of them in a massive global flood that kills virtually all life on the planet just to get rid of the few humans that had existed on its surface? Really?
Leaves out one last, extremely tiny,
tiny, tiny, little detail
.
.
.
WHAT DESIGNED/OR CREATED,
THE CREATOR/GOD,
CREATION ?
but, that's not nearly as important as my apologies to you and the fine posters, hurting their minds, with between ear gymnastics via verbal jiu jitsu expressed via ytrewqquerty dyslexiccixelsyd imagined images,that appear upon tiny screens opening windows
with each and everyone looking out, even though if reflected upon, it could also be simultaneously interpreted and/or debated, they are looking in.
Viewed are, what are, commonly referred to as vowels and consonants with
Variables, remaining the only constant
.
Attempting to explain, the unexplainable
explains
EVERYTHING
that we have learned, is possibly a designed perception that we all perceive uniquely,
thus,
all are
uniquely
deceived.
Oh yea, you fine posters have a groovy day as thats all ive left to not
explain.
P.S. I do apoligize, as i was not in any way attempting to derail your interesting and intelligent discussion , (as some discussions on NT are certainly train wrecks, where concrete evidence, often meets concrete bridge abutments, that traverse Nothing, and Everything,
but of course, never off, and never simultaneously simultaneous)
but just cause i'm a little rough around the edges, one can in no way say with a little fine tuning
i would and wouldn't be
drifting
( notice irony of no or, thus just drifting,
yet if an 'or' is added, i would only get dizzier via the force spinning.
Spinning vessels in circles like my thoughtless thoughts, while if a second or
added via subtraction, divided via a multi ply, and layered layer, that,
that when a peeled back, becomes even further unappealing. As two or's enable a vessel , propulsion into no direction, gets us all, Everywhere and Nowhere
simultaneously, yet Never,
never simultaneously )
even further off coarse.
But if God created the universe, why not make it all, (or even some of it), habitable by humans? Why so much space? Even if we could travel faster than light, we would never reach any further than the "local group". The distances are simply too great. Why not create a universe that humans can actually explore/expand to?
And lastly...No offense, but there is not one shred of evidence that God created the universe. In fact, for the questions I asked above, it for the most part proves that God didn't create the universe.
If U got infinite space,
why not take advantage of it ?
Who needs boundaries!
Sounds more like an excuse to explain why God exists.
(Disclaimer: As a Deist, I acknowledge that there likely is a God, but it has ZERO influence on anyone or anything in the universe.)
We're going to need a bigger space ship, Iggy.
To infinity and beyond!
almost gave me a Woody
True, and with literally zero evidence, it borders on insanity to even suggest God created everything.
I can accept an entity existing in this universe that most humans would define as God, having far greater powers over physics and a greater understanding of the universe, and one that perhaps seeded our planet with the right mix of amino acids to jump start life and the evolutionary process we now find. They explored that premises on a few different Star Trek episodes. I still think it highly improbable that we'll ever discover a magnanimous grand designer that exists outside of space time that is watching us and getting upset when we don't sing its praises.
" i like to go swimmin with" 18 "bow legged women,
and swim between their legs"
.
Clarification; 18 is the minimum age and number of legs , that certain 18 bow legged space creature women, posses , and that i would consider swimming with, as i'm sometimes miss understood, thus why i hit
certain undertones that i herd like snakes ( Which i actually have done, 4 rattlers ) over the head of a decapitated snake, still wriggling due to nerves, so to quell the sabre rattling, i provided a valium.
OK, i actually did not give the headless writhing n wiggling snake body a valium, but have actually herded rattle snakes before, but ran out of space, and one escaped.
.
Thus, why when you can Frosty, never when you are the one setting the boundaries,
set boundaries
i'm out, wish not to disrupt posters' seed
n joy posters
I suppose it's possible, but the scientist in me says, "no". As far as evolution goes, I would love to give Darwin a high 5. Whenever I get asked if the theory of evolution has merit, I point to polar bears. Why aren't all bears white? Because they evolved to adapt to their environments.
But as far as the sparks of life go. TiG posted an article about spacefaring microbes, so a passing rock/asteroid/comet could have dropped off the "sparks of life". Perhaps not those specific microbes, but there is proof that some can survive in the vacuum of space. (TiG can correct me if my memory is off).
STTNG: S6 EP20 The Chase.
I'm not saying I believe that, but the idea that in the last 14.5 billion years other life was born, evolved and existed in distant galaxies that could have had the technology to launch into the universe the basic building blocks of the life that evolved on their planets, perhaps frozen in icy comets, would make more sense to me than inventing a grand designer that lives outside of space time to accomplish the same feat.
I couldn't agree more. I firmly believe that there may have been a great many advanced civilizations that have died out billions of years ago and it's not a stretch to think one of those civilizations could have dropped off that seed.
To carry the metaphor a tad further....I am sure they were thinking they planted beautiful flowers, but instead planted poison ivy.
Is this universe a planned 'birth' or an accidental 'birth,' is that it Mr. Frost?
https://world.wng.org/content/a_fine_tuned_universe
From a truly objective point of view, one might say it's more of a partial birth abortion... How many times has most of life been wiped out on our planet so far? Like five times now at least.
The universe? Or, this planet?
On a universal scale, we see entire galaxies collide with other galaxies wiping out billions of stars along with any planets that orbited them. There are likely billions of stars that have collapsed into black holes. If that, as well as the numerous near extinctions on our own planet, is supposed to be a "planned birth" it certainly is a strange way to go about it.
I don't follow your train of thought. Mr. Frost rode this @2:
To which I 'played' off with a question.
Other material matters and occurrences in the "heavens" were not at issue. I'm lost as to where this 'talk' is going.
That said, all the stuff 'crashing' and 'burning' in the heavens could be a natural par for the course. Even evolution taking place in distant galaxies. This discussion seems to be wandering to me.
I was simply pointing out that from all evidence, this universe does not seem to play favorites. While we can wonder at our planet being in the habitable zone and up until recently we believed we might be unique in that way, we discover more and more planets orbiting distant stars every day. Many of these newly found planets are found within their stars habitable zones, the so called "Goldilocks" zone, so we now realize we may just be one of millions or billions of planets that have the right environments to sustain carbon life forms. Of course, other forms of life may have formed in other orbits that they would consider their "Goldilocks zone" which wouldn't support carbon life forms but could be perfect for something like silica based life.
The point being, when you asked if this was a "planned birth" or "accidental birth" I was implying that from all evidence so far, the universe doesn't care a bit about life or its birth and by it following universal laws of physics such as every action has an opposite and equal reaction, it regularly destroys galaxies likely far more often then it creates life and five times so far random encounters with asteroids or the volatile nature of the magma under our feet, has nearly wiped out all the supposedly precious life on this planet at a relatively early stage in its development, aka a "partial birth abortion".
Only if one operates on the assumption that universes are not generated by some sentient entity such as God. It assumes that there is a thing called "nature" which does not involve such a being and universes are a natural progression of that nature.
Further, even if we assume God not being responsible for the universe and that there are, potentially an infinite or near infinite number of possible universes, it is unlikely that one would be as likely as another. What a given universe would consist of would almost certainly fit some sort of bell curve.
This is, technically, accurate, but oversimplifies the argument in such a way that it ends up being misleading. The argument of fine tuning rests in part on the idea that this is the only known universe. It also rests on the idea that the large number of variables that govern our universe must be what they are and can't be anything else in order to observe what we do and that, statistically, it approaches impossibility that it would come about by accident. That is to say, it isn't simply a feeling that this couldn't just accidentally have come to be. The science of statistics supports it.
The counter is that, assuming no God responsible, since this universe exists it must be possible regardless of the improbability. But this argument rests on the assumption that the universe exists naturally. Something that has yet to be proven. Further, this view is as shallow as simply terming fine tuning as simply argument from incredulity. It completely ignores the improbability factor, which is insanely large.
It is incorrect to term it "anthropocentric" unless you can prove fine tuning isn't true. Because if fine tuning is true, it isn't anthropocentric. It's simply recognition of the evidence.
Are you suggesting that if our universe was intended there could possibly not be an intender?
Again, you're arguing from assumption. That such processes are a product of nature and chance. The rest of what you say is simply more of the same. You argue from the position that unguided chance is a given.
Adding a sentient entity is what adds an assumption.
Further, if you assume a sentient entity then it would be a begging the question fallacy to then conclude a sentient entity (which is what the fine-tuning argument concludes).
It does not matter if most of the universes are unusable, the probability for each one existing is the same. Pretend there are 10 factors and each factor can take the value 1 through 6. That allows us to consider this in terms of dice. Ten dice; one die per factor. The values of the ten dice is a signature for a universe. Now, the probability of any particular combination of those 10 dice is identical. All snake eyes is as probable as all sixes and every combination in-between.
The probability of any particular combination of those factors is extremely unlikely. The odds of winning a lottery might be 1 in 10 million, but someone will win. Should the winner presume that the lottery was rigged (designed to pick him) because statistically it is virtually impossible for him to win otherwise?
As per your opening comment, you are viewing the lack of an assumption of a sentient designer to be an assumption. Again, this turns the fine-tuning argument into a begging the question fallacy.
No. I was stating that if the universe was intended then necessarily there is an intender.
Again, you are the one adding the assumption. In my dice analogy, you would argue that my omission of an sentient entity arranging the dice is actually an assumption. You are the one making the assumption if you add in another factor (in this case, you add in a sentient entity).
Maybe, but I think it would be more of a conclusion than an assumption. Of course, people like me start with a belief in that sentient entity and we use this as evidence to justify our belief. But it is also an assumption to not add one, as there is no evidence that there is not. For most of the history of the world, people believed such an entity was responsible. Then one day the idea that there wasn't took off. The "enlightenment", more or less. They put forth that maybe there was no God and this is just all natural. Until their view is proven, it's an assumption.
It does matter, as we are speaking of the likelihood of this universe existing amongst an infinite or nearly infinite possible universes. To illustrate, imagine a box containing one million black marbles and one white one. The million marbles represent universes that are different than ours. The white, ours. Now, there's a statistical probability of drawing the white marble. That probability will never change no matter how many times we draw. But that isn't the same as likelihood. In a draw where you are only allowed to draw once, you are much more likely to draw a black one.
Someone will win eventually, if enough draws occur. This is the weak point behind your side of the argument. It assumes multiple universes. More specifically, that in an infinite or nearly infinite occurrences of universes, one like ours is bound to occur. The problem is, this is a philosophical argument and not one based on proof. We have no proof of a second universe, let alone an infinite number. Since we have proof of only one, and it is statistically unlikely, the fine tuned argument is that it must have been created with intent.
I don't agree. One does not have to believe in God prior to coming to the conclusion that this universe could not happen by chance. There are many who began as atheists who ended up believing in God due to the improbability of our universe. There are many atheists who do not believe in God yet are disturbed by the same improbability.
Further, examining the probability of our universe doesn't beg the question. In order for it to beg the question, the conclusion has to be included within the premise of the argument. In the fine tuned argument, God is not included in the reasoning. He is the conclusion of the reasoning.
Actually, I'm arguing that we are both adding an assumption. It can be nothing else without being able to prove one way or another.
Here’s one who is questioning..https://world.wng.org/content/time_to_get_over_darwin
It is not. You are saying that it is an assumption for me to not include a spurious premise. That is silly:
Nothing in the above is an assumption. But one can add an assumption like this:
Assume now that a sentient entity is specifically tweaking these factors to produce a specific universe.
With that assumption you change the entire argument and go directly to 'God did it'.
The fine-tuning argument seeks to argue that a sentient designer exists; you cannot just assume the existence of a sentient designer as a premise.
The probability of drawing the sole white marble is the same as drawing one of the black marbles. If you view the white marble as our universe this should help you understand the point I have made.
You certainly understand that the fine-tuning argument is all about variations on the concept of a universe. Do you realize that your objections thus far are all about changing the fine-tuning argument? This article is about the fine-tuning argument. It is not an argument that presumes only one universe nor is it an argument that presumes the existence of the very sentient designer that it seeks to prove.
If you assume a sentient entity you have bypassed the fine-tuning argument. The fine-tuning argument does not assume a sentient entity, it seeks to conclude a sentient entity.
Yes, that would be silly. Those aren't assumptions and not to what I refer to as assumptions. The assumption is that the universe was not created by intent by a sentient entity. God, in my words. In the fine tuning argument, the conclusion is that this universe cannot occur merely by chance but that it is the product of a designer. The opposite of that view is that this universe occurred through chance. That is the assumption.
You are oversimplifying again and getting it wrong in the process. Tweaking is a process you do on something already in existence.
The conclusion "God did it" is a conclusion. It isn't a part of the argument. The argument is that a universe such as we observe cannot be the result of random chance. This is based on the large number of variables that must be what they are in order to observe what we observe. Nowhere in that argument does God appear. God appears as the conclusion because it satisfies the question.
Yes, the argument seeks to argue that a sentient designer exists. Yes, you cannot just assume the existence of a sentient designer as a premise. That isn't what the argument does. One does not need to assume a sentient designer exists to examine the probability of a universe such as ours happening by chance. Once again, it is a conclusion based on the statistical likelihood of our universe existing by chance.
I think you need to reexamine this. For what you said to be true, there would be only one black and one white marble.
Apparently not. My understanding is that the fine tuning argument is that the improbability of our universe existing as it does is so improbable that God is the only explanation that makes sense. Is that your view of the argument? If so, how is what I am saying changing the argument?
I don't think so. As you say, the fine-tuning argument does not assume a sentient entity, it seeks to conclude a sentient entity. If you think anything I've said opposes this, you aren't understanding what I've said. As I have repeatedly said, God is a conclusion to the argument, not the basis of it.
This article is not about Darwin nor is it about biochemical evolution. At least read the friggin' title HA.
Yes I know what you are strangely claiming as the assumption. Having explained why you are wrong several times I am not going to repeat.
You presume that God exists yet the whole point of the fine-tuning argument is to argue that there must be sentient creator.
Correct, the fine-tuning argument does not assume the existence of a sentient designer. Your argument does.
Yes, that is the fine-tuning argument.
You assume the existence of God. The argument does not make an assumption about God, my argument also does not make an assumption about God. God is not a necessary assumption so it is not even in the scope of the premises. But you are arguing that my argument (and thus the fine-tuning argument that I am rebutting) assumes there is no God simply because these arguments do not assume the existence of God. Lack of an assumption is not an assumption. This has been explained repeatedly.
Yet you also claim that my argument is flawed because it 'assumes there is no God'. That means you only consider arguments that DO assume there is a God. You want it both ways. The logical contradiction is blatantly obvious and I am tired of repeating myself.
I don't understand why you think my claim is "strange". It seems rather common to me. The theist claims the universe is the result of God's desire. the Atheist claims that it is the result of natural processes. Since neither can prove their case conclusively, they operate from assumption. Do you disagree?
Fair enough. But you have yet to explain how that impacts the fine-tuning argument. At present, your complaint seems to be that the question only exists because we believe in God. Why? If, somewhere in the distant past, someone believed the Earth was a globe instead of flat and presented an argument to support it, would you react the same way?
No. The conclusion of the argument does.
My assumption of God concerning the argument is a conclusion from the argument, not a part of the argument itself. Are you arguing otherwise?
I'm afraid I haven't seen your opposing argument so far. That is, I haven't seen an argument from you countering fine tuning. All I have seen is objection to the question based on God being involved, as you prove in your next sentence.
You are speaking of the conclusion but seem to be trying to say God is involved in the determination concerning the fine-tuning argument. If so, you are the one trying to include an unnecessary element. It is equally unnecessary to assume there is no God concerning the fine-tuning argument. Looked at properly, the fine-tuning argument seeks to answer the probability that this universe could happen by chance. That's it. Nothing in it assumes there is or isn't a God responsible. That is left as conclusion made by the interpreter of the data.
Assuming I correctly understand what you've said here, you are making a senseless point. My argument is indeed that the fine-tuning argument doesn't assume there is or isn't a God. It simply seeks to answer the question of probability. The conclusion is up to the interpretation of the individual. Mine is that it suggests strongly that there is a God.
Nor am I arguing that your interpretation assumes there is no God, specifically because you haven't yet made such an argument.
I do not believe I have, but if you can quote me, I'm willing to consider your point.
On further consideration, I have claimed your argument is flawed because it assumes there is no God.
It really is pointless discussing this with you Drakk. You insist that an argument is flawed unless it has a premise of 'there is a God'. Including that premise in any argument (on any topic) immediately makes the argument unsound. You know this. I have explained it repeatedly. Yet you continue nonetheless.
The fine-tuning argument does not have a premise of 'there is a God' but you insist that my rebuttal of that argument must include a premise of 'there is a God'.
Basic logic: the absence of the premise 'there is a God' is not equivalent to inserting the premise 'there is no God'. Refraining from stating 'there is no Santa Claus' is not equivalent to stating 'there is a Santa Claus'. My argument does not include either premise because neither can be assigned a value of truth. Thus either premise, if used in an argument, makes the argument unsound.
Actually, I used your terminology. You are the one who said it was flawed and I went with it. A mistake on my part. What I said is that your view assumes no God. That was not a criticism, it was just pointing out a fact. The basis of what I have said concerning your view is that it generally only makes sense if one assumes there is no God. Apparently, this bothers you for some reason.
Okay. So why don't you show where I have stated otherwise? The fine-tuning argument doesn't involve God at all. It's a pure math thing. God only becomes involved in the conclusion, for those of us who believe God as an explanation. It's no different with your side of the argument. When I say what you say assumes no God, I'm talking about the conclusion. Not the argument. You are apparently having difficulty understanding this. Let's revisit what I originally said.
What I said was not an insistence that God had to be in whatever equation that led you to say what you did. What I said was recognition that your statement was a conclusion based on the assumption that there is no sentient entity such as God. The only way you can arrive at your conclusion here is that no thinking, sentient entity, God or otherwise can be responsible for the universe we see. Your statement essentially states that our universe is the result of random chance and not the result of intelligence.
What's more, your statement is flawed not because it doesn't/does leave out God. Nor is your statement an argument. It is a conclusion. One that excludes a sentient entity as a possibility and leaves the probability of this universe solely to chance. It's flawed because there is no evidence to back it up. In order to make a factual statement concerning this you need to present a statistically relevant sample of existing universes to prove your claim. Pretty sure you can't do that.
I then went on to explain, without using God, why I thought your view was most likely wrong. Rather than reply to that, you keep going on about your strawman argument that I am inserting God into the argument. God impacts my conclusion. He's not involved in the argument.
You have a single die. Toss the die and you will have an equal probability of 1,2,3,4,5 or 6.
This is the case if you make no external assumptions.
Now, add in the additional assumption that the die is loaded. This is an external influence that causes the die to always land on 1.
Now apply this to my argument:
Question: In the fine-tuning argument, is it logically correct to assume a God?
Answer: No.
Why?: Because the fine-tuning argument seeks to conclude there is a God (sentient designer). Including the conclusion as a premise (an assumption in the argument) is the 'begging the question' fallacy.
Now, to cap this off, my argument (this article) does not preclude the possibility of a sentient designer. Do you recognize that? This purpose of this article is to show that the fine-tuning argument is not a logical proof of a sentient designer. But it does not seek to show that a sentient designer is impossible.
A good analogy, but...
Assuming that this universe is but one face of an infinite or nearly infinite die and you only get to roll it once (as this is the only universe we are aware of) the odds of this universe coming up is staggeringly unlikely. And, again, it assumes that this universe is the product of chance and not design. This is the point behind fine-tuning. That it can't be the result of chance, like the roll of the die. Or, at least, highly improbable. Can you see that your analogy begins with the assumption that what number, or what universe, comes up is a product of chance?
Maybe, but again, do you not recognize that your argument rests on the assumption that chance, not intent, governs outcomes?
Yes the probability of out particular universe existing is indeed staggeringly low. Same is true, by default, for any other of the N possible universes. Why does this matter (except for the incredulity factor)?
If you insert the assumption of design we can no longer discuss the fine-tuning argument because that assumption turns the argument into a begging the question fallacy.
Yes, Drakk, the fine-tuning argument concludes that our universe was designed. So inserting a premise of a designer (the conclusion of the argument) is a fallacy. Do you not see this??
It is not an assumption, it is the lack of an assumption. If we make no assumptions about a die then by default the probability of any particular face is the same. It is only when we add assumptions to the argument do we see the probabilities skewed from the default math.
'Maybe'? I have told you repeatedly that my article does not preclude a sentient designer yet you say 'maybe'? You can read my article and you will not find any argument that precludes a designer thus corroborating my stated intent. And yet you still say 'maybe'? I would say at this point it is blatantly obvious, no 'maybe' involved.
The fine tuning argument does not have a premise of intent. Read it. Nowhere does it state that a designer exists. That is what it concludes!
What is the significance of this? I am here to show that the fine-tuning argument is fallacious. I am not going to first change it by introducing a premise that it does not posit. I hold to the argument as it is stated (and it does not have a premise of intent). You want to change the fine-tuning argument. Certainly I see why, but then it is not really the argument I am analyzing is it?
Where is the assumption of design in the fine-tuning argument? It is not part of the argument. It is part of the conclusion. That appears to be what you don't get.
No, because it isn't inserting anything. A conclusion isn't inserting anything into the argument. Whether one assumes God or not doesn't change the equation one way or another. The question is, given the number of variables necessary to be exactly what they are for this universe to exist, how likely is it that it was by chance? Where does God appear in that question? When doing the math, what symbol represents God? None? That would be because God isn't in the equation. God is the conclusion from the argument, for some of us.
Your article, on the other hand, starts off assuming chance is responsible. Unless one assumes chance, your article makes no sense.
Yes, maybe. Basically, the premise of your argument, as I have been saying, assumes chance is responsible and not design. While you don't specifically preclude God in actual words, your examples you argue your case with do actually preclude God or some other deliberate actor because they are all examples of what you consider chance. Look at what you say:
The most obvious assumption, which you insert into the argument, is that there are other universes or potential universes. For your argument to work, you have to assume there are other universes or potential universes. More, your argument takes it as given that whatever form other universes may take is a product of chance. You are inserting as given information you do not have.
So, yes maybe. I don't see where in your argument you allow for the possibility of intent.
Yes, I know. But for some reason you keep talking about inserting God into it. All you've said here is what I've been trying to tell you all along.
And you're failing but you can't or won't see it. In trying to refute it you have to insert unknowns into your argument. A multitude of universes, all determined by chance. The fine-tuned argument doesn't do anything like that. It takes known facts and reaches a conclusion. You have to invent yours. How does that prove anything fallacious?
Right, the assumption of design is NOT part of the fine-tuning argument. That is what I have been telling you Drakk. There is no assumption of design in the fine-tuning argument. It is what the argument concludes. Here, read this from me:
I could go to another thread, no doubt, and find other places where I repeat the same thing. Apparently it does not matter how often or how many ways I use to express a certain idea. Will you in the future now again inform me that the fine-tuning argument does not include assumption of design as a premise? Or are we clear that it is not part of the argument?
And given that, it is logically incorrect for an analysis / critique of the fine-tuning argument to presume the existence of a sentient designer. The argument should be addressed with no additional assumptions. And that is exactly what I did; assuming a sentient designer would change the argument. Further, there is no valid logical concept of assuming factors in the conclusion. Assumptions in an argument are stated as premises, not embedded in a conclusion. The conclusion either follows from the premises or it does not.
So the fact that any particular universe is extremely unlikely does not mean that the 'winning' universe was necessarily designed. The fact that any particular 5-card combination is unlikely does not mean that the Royal Flush was necessarily a result of dealer 'magic'.
And, per my article analogy, the existence of any particular human being is exquisitely minuscule. Does that necessarily mean that a sentient entity directed every aspect of reality to ensure that a particular sperm fertilized a particular egg at each of thousands (being conservative) of generations in your lineage to produce you?
A good question. I think it encapsulates what I've been trying to get you to understand. When you say the existence of any particular human being is miniscule, you are necessarily speaking sans designer. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing so, as long as you know you are speaking in that context. And it is absolutely true that, sans a designer, the odds are miniscule. The problem is, you don't know that it is indeed sans designer, but you present it for our consideration as if it were true. That, in most people's book would be called an assumption. Assuming no designer, the odds of my personal existence are miniscule.
So, to answer the question, no, it doesn't necessarily mean there must be a designer. That is why it says "appears to be designed". I believe it does so to leave room for the possibility that, despite how it appears, there may be no designer. Regardless of the possibility, it still remains that the universe appears designed for life.
I know you know it is possible, no matter how unlikely you may think it to be, that this universe is indeed designed. To refute fine-tuning, you need to present an argument that eliminates a designer as a possibility. While you've made a convincing enough point about chance, it hasn't eliminated fine-tuning. It seems to rest on, well it could be chance so fine-tuning can't be true. That doesn't really work.
Because to assume a designer violates the fine-tuning argument. This article is about the fine-tuning argument and that argument does not presume a designer. The analysis necessarily is sans designer because designer is the conclusion.
No, that is totally wrong. You are watering down the fine-tuning argument to one of mere opinion. If the point was mere opinion it would not be an argument. The fine-tuning argument in essence says: very low probability means sentient designer. Yet very low probability does not in any way lead to a designer. That perceived designer causal relationship is generated from incredulity, not logic and not actual causality. It is an argument from incredulity — a fallacy.
To refute fine-tuning one need only show it is fallacious.
Then, after all this time, you have completely missed the point (which I find to be amazing). I am not arguing that it could be chance, I am arguing that low probability has nothing to do with sentient design intent. These are entirely independent items that only seem related due to incredulity (incredulity = it appears too improbable for the universe to exist without a designer).
Hardly. We infer the existence of dark matter on the same principle. That is, it is it is improbable that all the detected mass in our universe can explain what we see that universe doing. We have no direct evidence that dark matter, whatever it may be. It's inferred by observation. The fine-tuning is the same sort of argument. While you may not be, many are convinced that this universe is too specific to be by chance, based on the low probability spoken of in the argument. The only difference is that one is testable, potentially, while the other is not.
Again, this is untrue. Given the facts we know it is not unreasonable or illogical to consider that there was a designer. If the universe appears designed to host life, it's hardly faulty logic to think maybe it is. If a Neolithic culture somehow came across a Chevy, they would not be thinking illogically if they thought that because it appeared to be designed, then maybe it was designed.
No. To refute fine-tuning you need to show the universe is not fine tuned or that chance was responsible.
This isn't an argument from incredulity. It's an argument based on the math. According to it's proponents, the argument suggests that, to put it the other way round, it was more likely designed. Not that it was, but that it seems to have been. Now you may not agree with the view but they aren't simply saying "I can't believe this wasn't designed". They are saying, based on the math, that it wasn't likely chance that was responsible. They can show you the calculations. No different than proponents who support that there is dark matter out there somewhere. Based on their math, it is more likely that dark matter exists than it doesn't.
Now, if fine-tuning stated that the universe is too well suited for life for it to have happened by chance, there is therefore a creator that would be a different kettle of fish.
Dark matter and energy are inferred by the measurable effects on known matter and energy.
Dark matter and energy are not a result of a probability calculation. They are names given to a mystery. Science has no clue what is going on within dark matter and dark energy (complete black box) but it does know that these exist and can even perform external measurements on it. But it is not the result of probability, it is the result of empirical measurement and unexplained discrepancies.
I agree.
I do not see the connection. Science has real evidence of dark matter / energy and zero evidence of a designer.
A designer is a possibility. Someone who wishes there to be a designer is wishing for something that is indeed possible. But there is zero evidence of a designer.
Drakk, one can refute an argument in many ways. One way is to show a contradiction, another is to show it is unsound via false premises, another is to show it is a fallacy.
The incredulity part is: 'the probability of our particular universe forming undirected is too low to be believable; ergo God did it'. 'I just cannot believe it happened without an intelligent designer' is the very essence of incredulity.
Only because they cannot accept that we were so lucky to be the chosen ones ... thus there must be a chooser. But note that for anyone to objectively make this comparison they have to disregard the unlikeliness of the existence of God. Which is more likely, that a universe could emerge from instability in a singularity to form what we observe as our known universe or that a sentient entity could somehow exist (or emerge)? Parsimony goes for the emerging universe. But that is not even considered by the audience of which you speak.
You do not think that the strong version of the fine-tuning argument is in use? One of the reasons I wrote this article is because HA posed that very claim. That is typically the version I witness. William Lane Craig used to go that way and then equivocated over time to the soft argument of 'which is more likely'.
Really, potential different human beings (I guess the article means personalities too?) How does one go about proving this?
Proving what? That it is impossible for two sperms to manifest identically in the same egg? That does not matter; the sperm are distinct. You are the product of sperm alpha and your potential sibling (who lost the race) would have been the product of sperm beta. Let's say that both alpha and beta will manifest identically so that you and your potential sibling would be the equivalent of identical twins. You still would be twinalpha and he twinbeta.
In terms of probabilities (the point I am making) it does not even matter if two sperm were identical down to the atoms. Similarly, if two universes (with different factor settings) manifest as identical (for all we can tell) they still would be two distinct universes.
I have heard this line of thought before about the sperm and egg: the unique "You." It is whimsical.
For only one sperm is needed to give itself to form the bases of another; the others become so much trash not worth of any consideration. Now then, the notion that some material is ultimately 'impregnating other material to form emergent universes follows the same whimsical position, in my book. What about yours?
So your 'rebuttal' to my article is that my analogy is 'whimsical'?
Well pick an analogy that is not 'whimsical'. For example, forget about sperm and egg and just look at pairing dynamics. You are the product of your mother and your father (and, indeed, their copulation at a specific point in time). Each of them is the product of their parents, then grandparents, then great-grandparents ...
Take your lineage back 100 generations (that is only about 3,000 years and human beings have been around for longer than that). That means that 2100 people in those 100 generations all had to conceive in a very precise manner (and time) for you to exist. Now human beings have been around for about 200,000 years. Before that, our ancestors have been on the planet for about 3.5 billion years. It is impossible to calculate the number of generations of life that preceded you, but your existence today is a function of all those creatures copulating in a very specific sequence and time. One variation and you do not exist.
Feeling fine-tuned?
I understand that. To what end is this discussion? We all should be clear that we are biologically created creatures. We do not routinely go around comparing our placement in our family lines (standing on the shoulders of predecessors) to how the universe forms. That's all.
Beats me. I have yet to see where you are going with your various comments on this article. Seems to me you do not want me to use analogies to get the point across. Analogies are there as an aid to understanding the point of the article. They are not the intended topic and if they do not help you then ignore them.
So if you are here to rebut the article then go directly to the facts of the article and talk about universes.
Ditto. I have heard this train of thought/discussion before. It routinely ended with another 'hit' of marijuana or 'tab' of acid. Ultimately, petering off into the air for lack of any solid foundation . . . .
I guess I am skeptical of a need to compare the universe to a sperm and egg. That is some fine (disturbing) philosophizing. What proof is there that each egg and sperm generates a different person. Also, this argument, "finely tuned offspring," correlates to Pro-life arguments for each possible life being precious and necessary.
It is an analogy to get the point across. To show that something very familiar (our own individuality) is a product of unaccountably complex factors where any slight variation and we do not exist.
Hardly. This statement is the classic atheist bias: i.e. people who believe do so because they aren't intelligent enough to do anything but blame existence on God. In truth, you could make this claim about any point of view. Ultimately, no matter how a conclusion is reached, it is because someone has decided it can't be (or at least probably isn't) anything else.
So setting aside this negative bias, it's easy to see that the fine-tuning idea is simply an argument based on observation and experience. People observe the world around them and find similarities. Observations and analysis of these similarities gradually mature into rules/laws of nature. For example, the idea that something does not come from nothing; cause precedes effect; and things that appear to be designed tend to have a designer.
hopefully not to light in the loafers, but as usual i digress.
Not sure after my weekend i can make an assemblance of thought(s) from that, but it sounded like you had an educated opinion on something.
.
I'll await T,i.G.'s interpretation, as i'm tired and lazy at the moment
Yes, it does appear to be an argument for a philosophy of nature about itself. Naturally-speaking, a fine-tuned birth of a universe, does not give you a fine-tuned set of planets! Thus, no guarantee of finely-tuned environments for people to develop, live, and work in.
What does this mean?
It means that our existing universe having established its foundations, some how set off processes which allow the planets and etceteras to 'hang' so that they are not discombobulated or malformed structures. It is certainly possible to have an ordered universe as far as universes go and have a 'jumble' inside it. That's all.
Yes, what you described is an alternate universe that has different factors.
So what point then are you making?
As I stated at the end of @7.2.2. "That's all."
How on Earth do you get from my article to this nonsense about intelligence of believers? That is an outrageous presumption on your part.
We observe that we exist. We observe that the probability of our exact universe is astronomically low. We assume that a sentient entity set the dials to get our universe as the intended result.
~similarly~
We buy a lottery ticket. We know the probability of winning is extremely low. But if we win the lottery we do not assume that some entity guided the process so that our ticket would win.
So on what grounds do we assume a sentient entity guided the process of the universe?
Oh wow. I triggered somebody.
C'mon Taco's, is this comment just to justify you wishing to prove my comment disposable ?
As i actually complimented your comment, and the result is possibly, just to prove me wrong you, unjustifiably like Nike Just Do It
Uh, no man. My comment was a response to TiG, not you.
what are you trying to say...it's not all about me ?
Well my little enchilada, believe it or not, i'll be the one who to prove my comments disposable.
It's not all about ignorance ruling, it's about, ah em ahem
well,
it is all about just that, far too often.
.
You should learn how to accept a compliment, just my opine.
Oh I love and appreciate your compliments.
while loving to hate my commentary, that comes complimentary, with my complimentary commentary ?
Well then, your appreciation is appreciated,
but,
have you configured the depreciation value ?
Priceless, no ?
Could we please return to the topic of this article?
yes
sorry T.i.G.
i had to kill time and found your seed very interesting, but i realize, as i did menton, i did not mean to derail or distract, it's just my nature
i promise you, i'm out
.
Thanks for thought provocation
PS; thanx Frosty, you fair weather fan
Very simply and I quoted the line I was referring to so that you would understand where it came from. I really think you knew this already.
This has been explained to you by me and by others. You know the wind is blowing because the trees are moving. You know something swims in the water because you see the ripples. It's common sense. You reference the thought process in your article. Your problem is that because of your bias, you characterize the process negatively instead of positively.
This is an example of the emotional attachment you have to your bias. You find my pointing it out to be "outrageous." It's not. It simply is what it is.
The quote you listed was "Largely, the fine-tuning argument is an argument from incredulity." before claiming that "statement is the classic atheist bias: i.e. people who believe do so because they aren't intelligent enough to do anything but blame existence on God".
Incredulity: noun - the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Nothing in that definition is saying someone isn't intelligent, it's saying some are so invested in their beliefs that they grasp at any argument they see as supporting those beliefs regardless of its veracity.
I personally think there are those who choose to believe even after studying science because it brings them comfort and they recognize there isn't proving a designer doesn't exist, so they choose to believe on faith. Then there are those who were simply indoctrinated by others and haven't done the research themselves and have faith in God because they put faith in those who told them there is a God. I believe these persons aren't any less intelligent than anyone else, they are simply ignorant of the facts. Ignorance and intelligence are two very different things. One can be extremely intelligent while also being woefully ignorant.
You think that this sentence …
… means: ' people who believe do so because they aren't intelligent enough to do anything but blame existence on God .' ??
That is both wild presumption and whole-cloth invention on your part Tacos!.
I made the point that the fine-tuning argument is an argument from incredulity. The term 'argument from incredulity' is not my invention, it is the common name for a well-known fallacy. Here is o ne of many available references:
In short, an argument that commits the argument from incredulity fallacy is one where the preferred conclusion is deemed correct only because the alternatives are too difficult to believe.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.
No, I tell you what's presumptious, TiG: You trying to me that there's no rational analysis behind my conclusion. That's it's not based on real experience. What's presumption and outrageous is you calling me a liar.
It doesn't take any particular imagination to tease out my simple rephrasing of your own words. Here, I'll even use the definition you supplied:
Meaning that that person lacks the brainpower to see it any other way. You say "can't imagine." Can't=incapable. And the only thing powering that capability is the power of intellect in the brain. Therefore, you think the argument is being made by people who are too stupid to think any other way.
Which is exactly what you do when you dismiss what others see as common sense as "an argument from incredulity."
If you are talking about your position, I agree. Your position is based on bias and dogma, not intelligence.
I did not call you a liar. I stated that you falsely accused me of arguing that 'people who believe do so because they aren't intelligent enough to do anything but blame existence on God '. That is demonstrably false. And your continuing to pursue this false accusation is now trolling. I suggest you make a comment on the topic and cease trying to pick a fight.
Do you think that the technical definition of the argument from incredulity fallacy is making a claim that the individual in question lacks brainpower? Seems to me you are trying very hard to create an attack from me that I did not issue (and, point of fact, never issue because that is not my position) and then cry victim.
This article shows the fine-tuning argument is an argument from incredulity. Common sense, and the views of individuals have nothing to do with the logical analysis of an argument.
So far, you have yet to comment on the content of this article. Instead you have fabricated intent by me, ignored my correction of your mistake (as if you know my thoughts better than I do) and simply doubled-down and have been solidly personal and derogatory.
You even hold that the argument from incredulity fallacy itself questions the intelligence of the incredulous subject. As if the word incredulous means unintelligent. That is too ridiculous for words.
Uh, you said,
"Whole cloth invention" is a lie (or fiction). I don't think you were accusing me of trying to tell an entertaining story, so what are welcome left with, hmm?
Here's the thing TiG: Go right ahead and disagree with me and we can have an exchange, but when you tell me I'm just making something up - that there is therefore no fair or rational basis for my point of view - I don't know what you expect in response. But you go on with,
Again, you call my integrity into question. A troll says outrageous things just to get a rise out of people. That is not the case with me. I am merely stating my opinion. Clearly, you are offended by it and you refuse to even consider the possibility that my statements are genuinely held convictions. how can you hope to debate with people if you are going to dismiss everything they say as some kind of fallacy or accuse them of trolling? It really comes off as childish, I'm sorry to say.
No, this article claims that the fine-tuning argument is an argument from incredulity but it never demonstrates it. Claiming logical fallacies is something you tend to do a lot. I see it as a way of dismissing an argument rather than engaging with it. I think it's probably just lazy.
Now, after the unsupported claim, you offer a counterargument to fine-tuning, which is fine. I have criticisms of it, but I think I may save them for a different thread further down.
Simply observing that your argument (fine tuning is some kind of logical fallacy) lacks support is the limit of analysis that can be performed on the argument because nothing comes after in support of the claim. My reference to common sense is not intended to be part of that.
I was only saying that what you call "the fine-tuning argument" is a kind of common sense. That is, people make observations over time, come to recognize rules of nature, and apply them to other situations. That's basically how common sense tends to work and I believe it's what's going on with the fine-tuning approach.
That's simply not true. My very first comment @7 quoted a line from the article and responded to it directly. Again, TiG, just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't give you license to make all these untrue accusations. Never commented on the content of the article? I don't know if it's a lack of observation, emotion clouding good judgment, or just disingenuousness, but that simple claim was pretty easy to prove false. Hopefully, you'll own up to it.
You know the difference between calling someone a liar (a claim about a person's character rather than an act) and claiming that someone made a false claim.
You demonstrably made this up …
Based, by your own admission, on this sentence from my article:
My sentence deems a well-known argument (fine-tuning argument) to be a well-known fallacy (fallacy of argument from incredulity). That is all it does. Just read it plain and that is what you get.
Your 'interpretation' is outrageous. It redefines the word 'incredulity' , recasts the meaning of the 'argument from incredulity' fallacy and suggests that an analysis of a common argument (fine-tuning argument) translates into a generalization that all believers are lacking in intelligence. Not even remotely close to what those English words mean.
Worse, I corrected your interpretation; told you that it was most definitely not my position. Instead of accepting the correction, you continued to argue with me about my own position as if you know better than I do about what is in my mind.
I am responding to a blatantly false allegation from you. Further, if an author tells you that you got things wrong, usually step one is to take the author at his/her word regarding intended meaning. Especially if the written English supports the author's stated intent. Instead, you chose to tell me that I apparently do not know what I mean by my own words even when your 'evidence' shows that your interpretation (not mine) is absurd. Ergo, you get this response from me.
Quite a bit more than that; you repeatedly accused me of writing an article that suggests believers are less intelligent than non-believers. I told you that is wrong (and my comment history and the content of this very article backs this up in spades) yet you persisted.
Good grief man. You quoted the comment to fabricate an allegation against me. That is not responding to content, you accused me of making a generalization that believers lack intelligence. Worse, I hold no such position and my comment history proves it.
Turning now to the part of your post that actually is about the subject matter:
The argument is based on the definition of the argument from incredulity fallacy (plenty of material on this fallacy is available to you).
Breaking it down further ...
The fine-tuning argument goes like this:
1. The probability of our universe existing by chance is unbelievably small.
2. Our universe exists.
∴ There must be sentient designer.
On premise 1: The fact that our universe (indeed: any particular universe) is extremely improbable does not necessarily mean intent. The fact that a Royal Flush is improbable does not mean that the appearance of a Royal Flush was anything more than chance (indeed it is as likely as any other particular arrangement of 5 cards). And if you look at the example I used in the article, the probability of any of us being alive is incomprehensibly tiny (3.5 billion years of generations where -at least for each generation of sexual ancestors- a particular sperm and a particular egg must conceive). Yet we all exist in spite of the minuscule probability that we would be the lucky ones to emerge.
On premise 2: The fact that our universe exists does not necessarily mean it was intended to exist. Its existence only tells us which of the many possible universes 'won'. Our universe 'won'. There is no way to tell from the mere fact of its existence that our universe came from chance or from a sentient designer.
On the conclusion: The conclusion, however, presumes intent and then from that intent it presumes an intender (a sentient designer). The reason (clearly shown in premise 1) is because the probability of our particular universe (indeed: any particular universe) is tiny. That is, it is just too much of a stretch to believe this happened by chance.
That is the incredulity fallacy.
Yes, it is very difficult to believe that our particular universe could exist without the influence of a sentient designer. But incredulity is not a basis for a sound argument. A 'must be' or even a 'most likely is' conclusion is fallacious.
What you are doing - and I suspect this is because of your bias referenced above - is to characterize the argument in the most limited and negative way possible. It's also incomplete. Try to see it in the reverse, i.e. positively.
There's more to it than that but it's easy to attack an idea if you only attack part of it.
You are trying to equate things because they exist in low probabilities. That would be fine except that the probabilities you reference for comparison, while small, are many orders of magnitude different from the collection of things that have to work just right and come together in harmony for intelligent life to live on this planet and in this universe.
You talk about sperm and genetic traits as 1 in billions and that's true, but what you are doing is like comparing a grain of sand to all the galaxies in the universe. Worse, even. Those probabilities cannot be compared to the infinite range of possibilities for things like the specific strength and nature of gravity, nuclear forces, and electromagnetism and their ratios relative to each other, effecting how they interact to build the universe. Change any of them slightly and you don't even get a universe. And I'm just scratching the surface of the many observations made in this vein.
Remember also that I referenced common sense based on experience. This is where your negative characterization of the argument comes in and needs to be turned around. It's not simply this fallacy you want to find that people cannot believe any other way.
Rather, experience has shown them that when something this complex comes together in this kind of harmony, it is invariably by intelligent, intentional design and construction. Therefore, it is most probable, to an extremely high degree of confidence, that the universe, in all its complexity and harmony also exists by design and construction. That is very different from assuming God first and then trying to make the facts fit the theory. It's also far more plausible than just being lucky.
Anyway, you don't have to agree with all of that and I don't expect you will. In spite of your protests of open-mindedness, it's pretty clear you don't want to agree with it. But it's still rather short-sighted to just dismiss it as a fallacy and insist that everyone who thinks this way does so because of incredulity (however you want to decide what that means).
I don't think you're ever going to admit to being out of line in the way you talk to people, but I do try to enlighten you. One more time because I have a minute.
OK so you claim you're not calling me a liar and then you write:
Then later, you write:
And you have the nerve to complain about me interpreting your thoughts?
Also, you keep saying this"
As if I don't have a right to my opinion. As if you get to be offended by it. That's pretty arrogant.
Sure, let's review that position. You say people believe this thing because they find any other possibility incredulous. i.e. they are unwilling or incapable of believing anything else. Incapable implies an inability. Lack of intelligence. So, perhaps you mean unwilling. Do you think that's better? Do you think that's not condescending and dismissive?
You wrote this article and posted it - the act of which invites people to argue with you about your position, including interpreting the meaning and implications of that position. I can't imagine what else you expected.
Really? Because you sure aren't doing that with me. You accuse me of trolling, making things up, and so on. I protest that I just want to discuss the topic and you claim I do not. When do we get to the part where you take me at my word regarding my intent?
A perfect example of you generating a totally false idea and attributing it to me. Just as I noted.
You go from incredulity to incapable to lack of intelligence. You just illustrated (again) how you engineered a totally false idea by successively layering on negative interpretations.
I have repeatedly told you that is not what I wrote and that is certainly not what I meant, yet you are here still arguing that you know my intent better than I do. And you speak of arrogance.
It is not merely 1 in billions, that is true only when you limit the consideration to your parents. If either of your parents did not exist then you cannot exist (p=0.0). Thus you must reapply the 1 in billions for each parent. Just considering your parents, the probability of your particular existence (using just conception as the focus) is between 1 in 729 billion and 1 in 8 quadrillion. If you consider your grandparents then their probability of existing now applies (four grandparents). At great-grandparents it is 8. Imagine the probability of your existence if we just go back 100 generations? The probability is decreasing at an exponential pace. And that does not even consider the probability of each individual living long enough to meet and then to progress to copulation (at the right time).
Further, life on the planet has been around for 3.5 billion years. How many generations of ancestors do we have from the beginning of life? You do not think that expresses the idea that the probability of any of us existing (versus our virtual siblings, uncles, etc.) is absurdly tiny??
I stated upfront that the likelihood of any particular universe is minuscule. Here, in this comment, you are arguing (redundantly) that the likelihood of any particular universe is minuscule. I used conception to illustrate that even under the most unlikely of circumstances a particular one of N possibilities does indeed show up. There is nothing at all remarkable that 1 of the N possibilities came to fruition. You are trying to argue that my comparison is wrong because it is far more likely for a particular human being to exist than a particular universe. Consider that I was talking about all the generations, not just the probability of you given your parents. If you cannot see how infinitesimally small the probability of any particular human being existing then I submit you are purposely trying to not understand.
To claim that the universe necessarily has a sentient designer because its probability of existing is low is exactly the fallacy of arguing from incredulity.
Your claim is based on a sliver of reality. We know that cars, buildings, microprocessors, etc. are all designed. And these are all complex. But you are extrapolating strictly from human inventions into all of reality. Snowflakes are complex. Your argument, in effect, is that because we know complex human inventions require a designer that each snowflake also requires a designer. There is zero supporting evidence that a snowflake is designed. Nor is there evidence that stars are designed, solar systems are designed. There is no supporting evidence that atoms are designed or particles. We can observe the whole of nature and find all sorts of complexity ranging from quantum entanglement, Higgs boson giving mass to particles through snowflakes, flowers, land masses, cloud formations, weather patterns into cosmological bodies such as stars, quasars, black holes, nebulae, etc. The complex products of human design are just a tiny subset of reality; the balance of complexity in reality has zero evidence supporting the hypothesis that it is designed.
You are generalizing from a very limited domain of human design into a universal claim that complexity requires design. I will let you figure out the name of the fallacy you have just applied.
Then maybe you should use words that say what you mean. It's all the rest of us have to go on.
It's a meaningless and inappropriate comparison. The chances of two healthy people being able to create another healthy person is extremely high. In fact, if they have sexual intercourse just a few times, it will be hard for them not to make a baby.
You can't compare that to a universe spontaneously popping into existence that is capable of everything from creating and then maintaining stable matter to generating intelligent life. It's worse than apples vs oranges. Like I said before, it's a grain of sand vs all the galaxies in the universe and beyond.
Here is what I wrote:
This means that the fine-tuning argument is an argument from incredulity. It is a claim that a well known argument is fallacious. And I named the fallacy by its common name: 'argument from incredulity'.
It is up to you to know what the argument from incredulity is (and is not). Or, you could ask. Instead you leaped to the outrageous and highly presumptuous 'interpretation' of:
You chose to not directly read my words but rather invented ridiculous meaning from a straightforward sentence and must do semantic cartwheels to try to justify your absurd allegation. And now you claim that my words did not clearly state that the fine-tuning argument is an argument from incredulity.
Fascinating.
Obviously you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Non sequitur. This has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made about the probability of a particular individual being conceived.
Obviously? OK . . . ummm, I guess I just secretly agree with you but just like arguing. Is it so hard for you to simply disagree? Why get personal? Talk about making something up out of whole cloth!
No, my words are in direct response to yours. You do love to try to throw the terms around. Unfortunately you don't do it correctly and you do it so much that it has become "obvious" as your go-to tactic. The sad thing is, it's not even necessary to be combative like this.
Your musings on sexual reproduction have nothing to do with the specifics of fundamental forces.
You did not address my critique:
I wrote:
You replied with:
My comment observed that even when just considering your parents, the probability of you -in particular- existing is between 1 in 729 billion and 1 in 8 quadrillion. Your 'rebuttal' is that it is extremely likely for two healthy people to conceive.
That is a perfect non-sequitur.
Of course it is likely for two healthy parents to conceive. When your father provided between 30 million and ½ billion sperm what, even at the point, is the probability that your particular sperm cell would pair with your particular egg? Do you consider it likely that your particular unique combination would be the winner over all of your virtual siblings?
No, of course not.
The probability of your particular sperm and egg pairing is between 1 in 9 billion and 1 in 200 billion if we consider the range of normal male sperm and the fertile life span of a healthy female.
But your father and your mother are also subject to these probabilities. So when we combine their probabilities we have between 1 in 729 billion and 1 in 8 quadrillion that you will eventually exist. Go back to your grandparents, great-grandparents, 100 generations, 1000 generations. At each generation the probability of your required particular sperm and egg pairing decreases exponentially. The probability of you existing is virtually zero. Yet, here you are and all your other virtual siblings, uncles, great uncles, etc. did not make the cut.
The probability of some sperm pairing with some egg is rather high. The probability of your particular sperm joining with your particular egg (indeed the probability that these cells even exist in the first place) is next to zero. Different sperm and it is your virtual non-existent sibling that is on planet Earth and you do not exist. Different sperm or egg at each point along your lineage and you cannot possibly exist.
No it's not. You just don't see the connection.
Sorry, but you missed the point, even though I have said it more than once. I'll try to sum up. The point is that your probability discussion fails at two levels. 1) The degrees of probability are monumentally far apart and therefore deeply irrelevant to each other. In short, they cannot compare because of the difference of degree. 2) They are also of a different type. The fine-tuned universe is about a universe that exists and functions, not a person with a specific identity or personality. For those two reasons, your comparison is inappropriate.
Therefore,
is irrelevant
And I showed that they are not. All you are doing is denying because the analogy is not identical to the situation of the universes. Thus you will reject every analogy.
Since when does that make a comparison invalid? The point is that we have plenty of examples in real life of near zero probabilities. The probability of you existing is next to nothing yet here you are. Do you think that it is necessary that a sentient entity directed each pairing of sperm and egg across your entire lineage? Why not?
LOL. You could make that ridiculous claim for any analogy. I see no rebuttal from you Tacos!, just a string of 'nuh uh'.
I am confident that you will 'nuh uh' any analogy I offer to avoid admitting that a near zero probability of any particular outcome does not mean that a sentient entity is necessarily behind the 'winning' outcome.
No, you haven't. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Since you are comparing things that lack sufficiently relevant commonality and possess critically relevant differences. This has been explained to you.
Not really. Not even close.
Yes you do love to attack the integrity of others. You have done it multiple times now with me. I'm not impressed.
'Not really'? No argument? No explanation? No reasoning whatsoever?
Well I certainly can make an argument on this.
If we limit our lineage to hominids (which is an extremely small piece of your actual lineage by the way) and assume an average generation of 30 years (very conservative) we can estimate a very conservative number of generations from your hominid ancestors to you. Hominids have been around for about 20 million years. With a 30 year generation that means about 666,666 generations.
Over 6 hundred thousand generations of your ancestors all had to operate in an extremely specific manner for you to exist. If along the way a single particular sperm (which seeded one of your direct ancestors) did not fertilize a single particular egg (from one of your direct ancestors) then you would not exist. For each ancestor up the paternal and maternal trees for you, there were billions of other potential siblings that were not conceived in favor of the individual who is one of your direct ancestors. Any variation in sperm or egg at any level for your entire lineage means you do not exist.
But you simply declare that the probability of your particular existence after all these generations and all the possibilities on each conception is 'not really' so tiny that it is next to zero. And then you add 'not even close' to suggest that the probability for any particular individual is much greater than minuscule.
And I have only considered hominids and the last 20 million years. We can go back to 3.5 billion years with species whose generations were much shorter than 30 years and thus many more generations. All of them having to produce the right offspring that will lead to you.
'Not really' is quite a remarkable claim to drop on the table without a shred of supporting argument.
This has already been explained to you. All you have to do is scroll up, read, and think a little. Harass me all you want, but there is a limit to how many times I will repeat myself. You've already exceeded your allowance.
I do not see your explanation.
In your prior comments you stated that the probability of a healthy couple having children is very good. While true, that missed the point entirely since I was talking about the probability of having a particular individual (e.g. the probability of your particular birth) not the probability of a birth. When speaking of the probability of all of your lineage working out so that you in particular arrive in the 20 th century the probability is virtually zero. And, in case you forgot, my most recent argument is @ 7.3.26 (and of course @ 7.3.29 ) but I have also explained this in my article and numerous times in comments.
You also claimed that my lineage example is inappropriate to help explain my point on the fine-tuning argument. You claim insufficient commonality
yet my lineage example is there to show that extremely low probability events (such as the probability of your particular birth) do happen routinely and we think nothing of it. Your commonality requirement is unnecessary.
Now, here in your response to my comment:
you offered this:
And you claim that your ' Not really. Not even close. ' comment has already been explained and that I should scroll up and read. Well, Tacos!, I did that and I saw nothing.
So how about you quote yourself and link rather than play go fetch my explanation ?
The flaw I see with the fine tuning argument is that it is based on "because something happened someone must have intended for it to happen", which is drawing a conclusion after the fact.
Because conditions on earth were hospitable to creating life doesnt necessarily mean that it was planned . It may just mean that if it hadnt happened we wouldnt be here talking about it.
Which is not at all what the argument is based on.
No, but that is the argument. The argument is based on the staggering amount of conditions that have to be just right, just as they are in other words, for that life to exist.
It's not "staggering" , it's what happened.
You can't say something is not supposed to exist the way it does. The fact that it does exist is all the explanation needed. Let's say bread toasts at 350 degrees , not 349, and at 351 it starts to burn. Does that mean the temperature of 350 was created to toast bread? No, it just does.
Things are the way they are. You cant say if they were slightly different life wouldnt be here.
While that is true, it doesnt explain anything.
One can make the same argument for surviving D Day or some other human malfeasance.
It is simply not true.
The basis of your argument is that things are the way they are and there's no point in asking why.
He established the basis for his argument in his first post:
Yes, and that is what I was replying to. But since you brought it up, his basis is illogical. When does John feel it's appropriate to draw a conclusion? Before the fact? Further, he gets it wrong about fine tuning. It isn't "because something happened", it's the unlikelyhood of this univers happening by chance. Do you understand that? It's a math thing. The odds that so many variables could be aligned just right to create a universe that could support life. The odds of that are orders of magnitude greater than surviving on D day.
His argument seems to be that the universe is what it is so why question it. If you think differently, explain.
I always find this argument humorous. On one hand you claim to use math to come up with the odds of something existing, then you conclude that because of the extremely low probability of that something existing, the only answer is to introduce a magic numeral "God" (without calculating the odds of God existing) which, when factored into any equation, makes everything fit.
What are the odds that the flying spaghetti monster exists? I'll bet they're a lot lower than the odds of the amino acids forming RNA and eventually resulting in DNA.
While scientists can take real known factors to calculate the odds of life randomly coming into existence (counting all the factors that would have to go right for it to happen) what they can't do is input any data for the odds of an omniscient being living outside space time that had no beginning or end, because there is no data. There are no factors by which you can draw up a God equation, it's just the last resort of the intellectually lazy to claim that math somehow proves God. It's like claiming that because it was highly improbable (and thought to be impossible for centuries) for man to walk on the moon, the fact that we did it means God must have been working for NASA. I mean, how else do you get everything to go right to accomplish such a feat, right? /s
Actually it means EVERYTHING is possible when mankind can put mind to it (Even the Bible states this. Jesus: "Everything is possible for one who believes." —Mark 9:23.) People working in concert, the natural and the spiritual minds to accomplish all. Even the astronaut who landed on the moon, thought to wax important in a planned set of remarks about the God (over all):
This is not against your point, but to be thought of as in addition to it, DP!
I have made this statement before: It is clear to me that mankind can be further along in knowledge if it simply stopped wasting so much time with political conflicts, "nationalism," and selfishness (Aka. wars - no matter the reasons). As we can see everything in our world 'issues forth' from the mind, beliefs, faith (perseverance), and beliefs found in humanity.
I have no problem envisioning mankind one day developing the means to walk on air - with the elements itself sustaining it. (Even the Bible states this.
'The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.".'—Genesis 11:6-7.)
We simply fight too much over what the universal larger scheme would consider the universal smaller stuff. What about the importance of maintaining a diversity of ONE ACCORD.
Incorrect. I don't claim the only answer is God. I claim it is the most likely answer. It could be that TiG is correct and this universe is merely the product of random chance, yet this is, to my mind, more difficult to believe as an answer than God did it. To the best of our knowledge, this universe should not exist. There should have been an equal amount of antimatter as matter, but there isn't, obviously. The best we can do is surmise that some thing tipped the balance in favor of matter but we don't know what it could have been. What I would ask you is, what is wrong with the idea that a sentient entity, such as God, was responsible for it? What would be your objection?
So where is the math to prove it the "most likely" answer?
Again, how can the low probability of something occurring be less likely than something completely incalculable? How can you calculate the odds of God with absolutely zero physical evidence of one? We can calculate the probability of life occurring only because we more or less understand what would be required for life to occur. We can even roughly calculate the amount of dark matter and dark energy in the universe even though we can't see it because it has a perceptible effect on the universe.
So far any attempted calculation, such as the studies they've done on prayer, show absolutely no difference in effect between praying to any of the different Gods most commonly believed in or none.
So how would one conclude that the probability for God is greater than life occurring randomly? It seems to me that it being "most likely" is based purely on an individuals opinion, their gut, their desire to believe aka "faith".
So why bother claiming it the "most likely" when it seems what you really ought to be saying is: "The odds of life occurring randomly is very low. Therefore, I've chosen to believe in a God because I want to. I'm tired of wondering what it's all about, and I like all the other people who have chosen to believe in God and it's a pretty big club and feels good to be a part of something. But ultimately I know my choice to believe in God isn't based on logic, reason or anything calculable, it's just something I want to believe in, so I do".
At least that would allow an honest discussion instead of these tired debates where the logical and reasonable accept the fact that we don't know how it all began vs those who claim logic and reason dictate we should believe in their chosen brand of deity. Of course the logical and reasonable can't let lies, misinformation and personal opinion to replace actual logic and reason thus they are here constantly stick checking them, which gets the believers all upset as if they're being told their God can't exist, which isn't what anyone is saying here.
To me he is pointing out that the existence of our extremely unlikely universe lends no credence to the conclusion that it was designed.
By the same token, if you shuffle a brand new deck of cards, hand it to me, and I deal you a Royal Flush, does that mean that I stacked the deck? It is possible that I pulled a magicians trick on you, but clearly the presence of the Royal Flush is wholly insufficient to conclude I stacked the deck. No matter how hard it is for you to believe otherwise.
That is ~~NOT~~ my argument. My argument is not that the universe can only be the product of random chance. Rather, my argument is that the unlikeliness of our universe does not mean that it was designed.
There could be a sentient designer who picked our universe out of the N possible universes (effectively a stacked deck scenario). It is possible. I am not saying otherwise. Rather, I am rebutting the fine-tuning argument, not making an argument that a sentient designer is impossible.
Reread my article and you will see that my argument does not preclude the possibility of a sentient designer.
I would suggest you read your own article.
I thought your argument was that the argument of fine-tuning is fallacious? Is that not the point of the article? That is what I've been talking about, anyway.
That's good to know but not really relevant. The issue I'm discussing isn't whether or not God could possibly account for the universe. The issue is your article and why it doesn't actually refute fine-tuning. If you think I've been arguing a case for the existence of God then I suggest you go back and re-read what I have written. This time, assume that I am not making a case for God. I'm talking about whether or not your article does what it says. Refute Fine tuning.
Yes, you keep saying this, as if this were an objection I have brought up. It doesn't matter to me whether or not your argument precludes a designer. If it doesn't that's fine, but I don't see the relevance.
Fair enough, but that is an opinion. Right? After all, there are plenty of people for whom it does lend credence. To be clear, the fine-tuning doesn't provide proof that God exists. What it does is strongly suggest, to some people, in favor of His existing.
Exactly. This is what I have been saying @7.
My article (read it carefully) does not make the case that the universe can ONLY be the result of random chance. That came from your mind, not mine.
The statement: "... the unlikeliness of our universe does not mean that it was designed" is the refutation of the fine-tuning argument — the link to the incredulity fallacy. The point of the fine-tuning argument is that the probability of any particular universe existing is so tiny that our universe (which sustains life) simply could not come from chance; therefore there must be a sentient designer. That is a textbook argument from incredulity.
You repeatedly complained that my argument precludes a designer. Your comments are still visible. Your opening paragraph, for example, was this:
And you repeated this 'assumption that there is no designer' claim throughout. It is still there in your comments. You did write this, right? Did you mean something else by the words in blue? Is there a special way I am supposed to read this other than as plain English?
The article doesn't say it refutes fine tuning. In fact, it states right at the beginning "The science behind the argument is correct, slight changes in factors such as the strength of the fundamental forces, the speed of light, etc. would make our universe impossible."
What it points out though, is that the "fine tuning" we find in the universe, such as the odds of you being you which is ridiculously small, doesn't in any way indicate that there is a designer just because its difficult for you to grasp each little step along the way. You are you, which is evidence all the things went right for you to be you, but that doesn't indicate that some other outside force, aka a "designer", was trying to make "you".
If you went outside and threw a basketball as high as you could in any random direction, it would eventually come to rest at a specific location based on all sorts of factors that would be nearly impossible to predict. But if after the ball came to rest you rush up and draw a circle around it and claim that was your target all along, one might be amazed if they believed you. They would be thinking about all the variations in angles, wind, elasticity of the ball, friction of the ball surface, friction of the objects it bounced off of, all tiny variations that determined the outcome of where the ball would end up and assume you must be a genius for getting the ball to land in the goal. Of course, all you did was throw the ball, you were at best, the "prime mover", but you didn't determine where the ball would land, you decided to claim "I meant to do that" after the fact.
No one has any evidence of what caused the big bang, what threw the ball, but many believe there was a prime mover because its an unknown. But simply looking at where the ball landed and coming to the conclusion that something wanted it to land there, something intervened or predicted the outcome, is fallacious.
All the article above does is point out how just because we find ourselves here, and we put importance on us being us, that does not mean that the insane odds of us being us proves there was some designer who predicted or designed us. It merely proves that the ball was thrown, not by who or what or for what purpose if any.
DP, I am going to agree with you on this. BTW, you are overdue for a long 'in the tube' compliment. You do come up with some very visual analyses (even if sometimes 'raw' and scouring) to make your case—you've been doing so for a considerable time now.
Yes, I see your point. For the record, I have always thought the 'fine-tune' argument (for God - see Teleological Argument) jumped to a conclusion. What I have been asking Tig - in my own way is why does he feel it purposeful to bring this up (and out).
Honestly, I couldn't care less. What I care about is that in all your explanation your examples are based on random chance. And that's fine. It's your argument and you get to make it.
While the unlikeliness of our universe doesn't prove it was designed, neither does it prove, nor do your examples by which you attempt to prove your case, mean that it wasn't, either. Since it doesn't prove that it is not, in what way is it a refutation?
The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that our Universe is remarkably well suited for life, to a degree that is unlikely to happen by mere chance. That's how Wiki states it. In your article, you attempt to refute this idea with the apparent randomness of human birth. Presumably, we are to assume there is some thing (other than a sentient actor) that is popping out universes or has the potential to and this one is just one of many possible. This is the lucky universe that won the lottery.
The problem is, you ask us to assume a condition we don't know exists for your argument to work. What we do have is this universe and with no known other universes to compare it to, this is all we have to go by. And since this is so it certainly appears that this universe was designed to support life. Remarkably so.
So I ask again. How does your argument, which consists of assumed conditions, refute the idea that a fine-tuned universe suggests design?
Complaint? If you wish to call it that I can't stop you. But I don't feel I was complaining about anything, let alone your argument precludes a designer. To my mind, I have only pointed out the problem with your argument. I hardly expected you to account for a designer and I am baffled by your claim that I have done so. Let's look at the quote:
That wasn't a complaint that your explanation didn't include a designer. I was highlighting that your argument is from a materialist point of view and asking us to view those things as given. This is why I called it an assumption. I am not now, nor have I ever in this discussion, "complained" about your not including a designer. I can hardly expect you to do so.
So, is there anything factually untrue in that quote? Are you not operating from the assumption that there is no designer in your article? I've read it several times now and it still seems to me you are arguing materialistically. Not a problem if you are. I hardly expect you to take my view, after all. I don't understand though, why you have a problem when I point it out.
Well you should care because that is where I made my point. And of course my examples are based on chance because that is the basis of the fine-tuning argument. If the fine-tuning argument did not allow for chance in its premises it would almost certainly be a blatant begging of the question. To be clear, the fine-tuning argument cannot be:
1. The probability of any particular universe existing is near zero.
2. A sentient designer exists to pick a proper universe.
3. Our universe was picked by a sentient designer.
∴ There must be sentient designer.
Nowhere do I claim that the universe was not designed. Why do you keep repeating this strawman? This article does not argue against the possibility of a sentient designer. And if you think it does then deliver a quote.
The specific features of our universe are no more or less likely than any other potential universe.
That is an analogy to illustrate that even though a particular outcome has a near-zero probability that does not mean it was guided to be by a sentient hand. Do you recognize the point?
Who says you need to assume anything? I am not making an assumption of the causal agent (sentient or not). The probability of any particular universe is extremely small. That premise is based on science and we agree on that point. Where we disagree is that you think the fact that our universe 'won' means that it was selected by a sentient designer. Why?
Except I do not. See above. You are adding to my argument again. Just stick with what I presented.
Why? Exactly. What you just wrote is equivalent to: our universe allows for life so it appears as though it was designed. Why? There is nothing about the existence of or features of the universe that suggests it must be designed. If our universe emerged from a singularity with the properties we observe then it would allow for life.
My argument does not consist of assumed conditions (see above) so that part of your question is wrong. My argument is that the existence of any universe (ours or the N-1 other possibilities) yields nothing to suggest how it came to be. The only way we could view our universe anthropocentrically (what you are doing) is if our universe was the 'winner'. Any other universe (at least one capable of hosting intelligent life) might have a silicon-based life form claiming that their universe was designed to support them.
Further, my argument is that the fine-tuning argument is based on incredulity. This is obvious. It is predicated on very small probabilities. It argues that because our universe is so improbable it had to be designed. Well, no. That is an argument from incredulity. That is the flaw in the fine-tuning argument I have noted here.
No, Drakk, this article does not assume there is no designer. Where do you see this assumption? Give me a link. This article follows the assumptions of the fine-tuning argument. The fine-tuning argument necessarily cannot assume a sentient designer because that is what it concludes. I have stated this repeatedly. Not sure I can make this any clearer.
I don't see why. Your point is, as far as I can tell, that just because something seems improbable doesn't mean a designer is responsible, and you gave examples you felt illustrated this point. Why would I deem it necessary for you to caveat this with a statement like, of course a designer is still possible?
And, fortunately, it is not so we don't need to address this any further.
And nowhere did I claim you made such a claim. I was stating a fact. Fine-tuning doesn't prove there is a designer. Your examples do not prove there isn't. Do you disagree? And I was responding to your statement:
To refute something you have to disprove it. That's the definition of the word. My point was that, while it still may be chance that is responsible, all you've done is show it to be a possibility, not proven that it is the correct view, which you need to do in order to refute something. The conclusion of the fine-tuning argument is that the universe appears designed. How does saying, "it could be chance" refute the argument?
I know you already know the answer to this. The idea is that there are too many factors that have to be what they are to be the product of anything other than a designer. It appears too unlikely to be anything else.
Yes. It's not difficult. What you seem to miss is when I'm talking about your assumptions is that in giving your analogies you generally assume they occur without a designer's influence. That is, your example of how any particular human comes into being as a product of chance assumes no designer involved in the process. I'm not saying that is a fault in your argument. I am saying it is an assumption that may or may not be true and something that has to be kept in mind. You present your analogy as if we all agree that it is a thing determined by chance.
To put it another way, your analogies assume something true when it may not be. That of all the potential people that could have happened when the egg was fertilized, I, by a long chain of chance, was the one to be born. It may be, as many people believe, that no one else could have been born and I had to be born because a designer intended it to be so.
We aren't speaking about my beliefs, nor have I been discussing them. We are talking about the argument of fine-tuning and whether your argument refutes it.
Well, your analogy about birth certainly strongly suggests it, don't you think? I mean, logically, for your analogy to work one must assume multiple universes out of an infinite or nearly infinite possible. Because if you don't that just strengthens the fine-tuning argument. That is, not only does the universe appear designed, it's the only one there is. Kind of makes the odds against it being chance go up significantly, don't you think?
No one has said it must be. The argument says "appears to".
How do you know there are N-1 probabilities? Is this not an assumption from the materialist point of view? Should there be a designer it is possible that there would be zero chance of a universe unless the designer makes one.
True enough (except I'm not sure what you mean by my view being anthropocentric), but again, you're speaking materialistically. That isn't a problem or a fault, but it is an assumption. We don't know of any other universes. We just sort of assume that where there's one there may be more and that might be true. It might not be, though. This is the major reason I keep pointing out your assumptions. You are arguing things as given when they may not be.
I can understand why you think so. In a way, it is. But more importantly, there's a sound scientific basis for it as well. It is scientists who came up with fine-tuning after all. You observe, postulate, test and conclude. Unfortunately, this isn't very testable, which is why I think they leave it at "appears to be designed", not "must be". And it certainly seems designed to me.
In the human birth example. You are presenting such as an example of an undersigned process, are you not? All of your examples speak of something that "naturally" occurs, without the input of a designer?
I agree. Where I disagree is that it does so. It doesn't say a designer made the weak force just perfectly to account for life. It says that it cannot be anything else for life as we know it to exist. This is combined with I think something like 25 other factors and the probability of all those factors coming together in such a way as to allow life seems very improbable. That conclusion leads to suggesting maybe there is a designer.
I think this just about does it for me. I don't think you have presented an argument that refutes the idea of fine-tuning. Not saying that to be mean. Just my opinion. Have a nice day.
Close enough.
Beats me. That is my question. By the same token, why would you presume that my argument assumes a designer is not possible?
Most recently ...
Here you are talking about my examples and my case and stating that they do not prove the universe was not designed. Yet I have never claimed that the universe could not be designed and you now tell me you recognize that I have never claimed the universe could not be designed. Bizarre.
One way to do that is to show it is fallacious. An argument from incredulity is fallacious. Refutation complete. Yeah, I know that you will never recognize the fine-tuning argument as an argument from incredulity, but I knew that before i wrote the article. It is regardless of your desire to not see it.
⇨ There is the incredulity the argument depends upon. ⇦
It is so boring repeating the same basic idea a dozen times: If I am going to critique an argument that does not presume a designer, I cannot presume a designer without invalidating the argument. You cannot either. If you presume a designer in this argument you have changed the argument.
Then you would also have to believe that the designer is micro-micro-micro ... micro managing the events of life across all generations for all of earthly time to ensure the right couples copulate at the right time to ensure the right sperm and egg bond to produce the intended parents for each generation to ultimately yield you. Is that what you believe, that God is running the show at that level of detail? Does this not cause a problem with free will?
No, that is not what I think. The birth analogy was to show that the probability of you existing is so small it is virtually zero. Yet here you are. Similarly the probability of our universe existing (rather than one with silicon life forms, for example) is extremely small. Yet here it is. A tiny probability does not mean that a sentient designer made a selection. (Of course, if you are going to stick with your micro-micro-micro ... micro managing God then you preclude anything but divine will so nothing I or anyone else offers will be recognized.)
Appearance of design is a subjective call; that would be a wishy-washy conclusion of no real import. A flower might appear to be designed but we know that it is the result of a complex evolutionary process. A snowflake appears to be designed. I suppose you are going to now simply claim that everything is designed by a micro-micro-micro ... micro managing God.
The key premise of the fine-tuning argument accepts the scientific finding that our universe can be defined in terms of the various factors of physics and that minor changes in some of these factors would produce a different universe. Right? So let N be the number of unique alternative universes derived by enumerating all the possible values of all these factors. No assumption from me. And the N-1 comes from the fact that I just excluded our current universe (the 1) leaving N-1 alternatives. I figured that would be obvious.
If you assume a designer then you are no longer in the fine-tuning argument. Indeed, if you assume a designer, the fine-tuning argument is unnecessary (plus it degenerates into a begging-the-question fallacy since your premise/assumption is the conclusion).
And I keep pointing out that I am only using the assumptions of the fine-tuning argument. Naturally. I add no assumptions. You, in contrast, add the assumption of a designer.
Yes the fine-tuning factors are findings of science. I stated this upfront in my article.
Because, again, introducing a designer assumption invalidates the fine-tuning argument. Sound familiar? My example holds true to the assumptions of the fine-tuning argument.
You agree but you want me to include the designer assumption anyway.
Yeah Drakk, the fine-tuning argument does not include the assumption of a designer.
Yes, that is what the fine-tuning argument concludes. So you say you disagree but then state what I have stated. Well I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
As noted, I knew your opinion years before I wrote this article. What I find curious is that you cannot seem to interpret the fine-tuning argument without (possibly unintentionally) using a premise that God exists. That, more than anything else, has made this discussion circular and non-productive. This is shown clearly when you introduced a micro-micro-micro ... micro managing designer controlling every little detail of reproductive reality to ensure that ultimately (after unaccountably many generations have passed) you would be born.
Okay, then. So, you're saying that the argument cannot be true?
It is fallacious to argue the necessity of a sentient designer because the alternative seems too incredible.
A sentient designer might exist, but the conclusion of this argument is based on a logical fallacy.
Well, it appears neither will be convinced by the other. Thanks for the conversation.
We knew that upfront.
Likewise Drakk.
Ever notice how arguments from incredulity regarding the existence of the universe are NEVER extended to an imagined designer as well?
The purported solution is always exempt from the supposed problem. Funny how that works, isn't it?
I have also noticed that logic in general is adjusted when religious beliefs are threatened (even indirectly).
Religious people have often told you that all has not been revealed to them about the spiritual order of life—only enough revelation to walk in-by Faith in accordance with passed down holy books, and spirituality in a general sense.
Why do you subtly keep comparing people's faith to the natural order?
Everyone agrees neither side of this 'debate' can move the other side without outside help: The Believer accepts that God has contacted him or her individually and has faith; the Unbeliever can not accept that if God is real God could be so unreasonable as to not present the slightest five-sense worthy evidence logically and uniformly of being extant
What this article is about is fine-tuning in nature-using natural processes. Not sure what God has to do with this!
The fine-tuning argument is an argument for God. I do not believe you are unaware of that fact.
Yes, I am fully aware of the fine-tuning argument made by religious apologists. But, as I read your article (above) are you discussing it as natural (apart from God) phenomenon?
This article shows the flaw in the fine-tuning argument. It is an argument from incredulity; a fallacy.
So what IS your proposal on account of the article? To discount faith or enhance naturalism? Both?
Otherwise, it feels to me, we are all just chattering away to no good end.
I wrote this article to illustrate that the fine-tuning argument is fallacious.
Why? What proof do you have against it that you can put forward?
Your article states:
That "if" could also result in blobs, plural of gases and rocks - which is the current state of understanding. Yes or no? Or, do you simply not know?
I wrote this article to illustrate that the Fine-tuning argument is a fallacy — in particular, it employs the argument from incredulity fallacy. The answer to your question is the article itself.
Yes indeed. All sorts of possibilities.
Is this some kind of code? Are you saying that the 'current state of understanding' of the known universe is that it is a collection of gases and rocks? If so, then I suppose that view of our universe is accurate in a very simplistic sense. Not the way I would describe it though.
I doubt that this is what you mean. But it is up to you to make a clear question if you want someone to be able to deliver a clear answer.
You did good! Of course, the universe is more than gases and rocks (dust, ultraviolet light, chemical elements of life, 'laws of nature,' an array of masses to which we give names to, etceteras).
You did great! I feel like I'm in science class again. All that's missing is Miss Bowdring.
No, actually it doesn't. It shows a bias against the possibility of God, which is my point concerning what we've discussed so far. Everything you use in your article assumes that what occurs is due to chance. Without that assumption, your argument falls apart. Your problem is that you cannot conclusively prove chance.
With fine-tuning there is only data. Only statistical probability. The determination of God only comes as an explanation of the data, not as a part of it.
My article does not try to conclusively prove chance. That is not necessary to show the fine-tuning argument is an argument from incredulity.
So true.
We haven't beaten the odds. The chance of the universe existing is 1 in 1. The universe does exist with a probability of one. The solar system and Earth do exist with a probability of one. I do exist as an unique individual with a probability of one.
Existence with a probability of one means there aren't any other possibilities. In the absence of other possibilities, the search for origin resolves to questions of causality.
Do you think anyone is going to buy this? You are looking at a situation after the fact and affixing a probability to a resolution. That is as absurd as claiming the probability that the lottery winner won the lottery is 100%. Now, prior to the winner being selected, what was the probability that a particular ticket would be the winning ticket?
Use any method of observation, the universe does exist with a probability of one.
A winning lotto ticket can only be observed after the fact. The winning lotto ticket exists with a probability of one. Trying to determine why a specific lotto ticket was a winner resolves to determining cause. The lottery was intentionally designed to be random but was the winning ticket really selected randomly?
If existence with a probability of one is the result of random chance then it is impossible to discover cause; logically deduced cause becomes an unknowable. Existence with a probability of one resulting from random chance becomes a miracle.
A meaningless application of probability. That which is known to be true is true with a probability of 1.0.
Gibberish.
Perhaps. The certainty of existence precludes other possibilities. What is cannot be what is not (or what may be possible).
I have to go with TiG on this one. You seem to be stating something like, since it exists there was no possibility that it could not exist. This is highly debatable and, misses the point of the discussion. The debate doesn't examine what is, but the likelihood that what is could occur without direction.
I addressed that in comment @10.2.5 and am not going to repeat the comment here.
TiG has presented a common argument for atheistic or agnostic incredulity based upon intellectual, abstract recognition of unlimited possibilities throughout time. With so much statistical randomness present in the universe, how can there be a god directing the course of events in the universe?
But the point is that our existence has eliminated all possibilities. Our existence is the result of an unbroken chain of events from the universe's first moment of existence. Our existence is not a statistical abstraction; our existence is an observable truth. We exist because what happened happened and could not have happened any other way. The intellectual, abstract improbability of our existence does not change the truth of that existence. We exist with a probability of one.
We are directly linked to the creation of the universe through a chain of events that could not have happened any other way. We are here, we exist, and there are no other possibilities.
Did we beat the odds or was the game rigged in our favor?
That is not my argument. I am not suggesting that the plethora of apparent randomness in our universe suggests there is no god directing the details.
Further, my argument has nothing to do with atheistic or agnostic incredulity; if anything it would be the opposite of that.
My argument is clearly stated in the article.
Now you are moving towards the argument of this article: does the extremely low probability of our particular universe existing (indeed: any particular universe) necessarily mean there is a sentient designer?
Yes, it's a matter of faith. Those who have faith in a god do not argue from the position of incredulity. You stated:
"The popular fine-tuning argument posits that a sentient designer necessarily created the universe because so many factors must be set perfectly for our universe to exist (and to contain life)."
That 'fine-tuning argument' is, in reality, a counter argument that addresses atheistic or agnostic incredulity. Someone that has faith in a god argues that a sentient designer necessarily created the universe. Full stop. There aren't any qualifiers; there isn't a 'because' that justifies the argument for a sentient designer. What is cannot be what is not (or what may be possible).
Theists recognize a god as truth just as they recognize their own existence as truth.
That makes zero sense. An atheist would not put forth the fine-tuning argument in support of their view. How does 'the probability of our universe existing is unbelievably low' give any value to an atheist's argument?
Yes, and some theists use arguments such as the fine-tuning argument to argue in favor of their faith. Right? So where is this going? This article argues that the fine-tuning argument is a fallacious argument from incredulity.
The atheist argues from the point of incredulity; disbelief that the universe could have been designed. The atheist claims that the unbelievably low probability of any specific outcome indicates the universe could not have been designed. Since the probability of any given outcome is very, very low then claiming the universe has been designed is too incredible to believe.
The low probability of any given outcome is a core premise of the atheist's argument. Other outcomes are just as likely as what we observe. Our universe is one among many, many possibilities. "God does not play dice"; therefore, there cannot be a god.
How is the 'fine-tuning argument' an argument from incredulity? What are theists unwilling or unable to believe?
The atheist does not put forth the fine-tuning argument. That argument is an argument in favor of a sentient designer. At the very best, an atheist would rebut it.
That is irrational.
If someone did that, then that would be an argument from incredulity. A fallacy. I know of no atheist who makes such a silly argument. Do you?
Where are these atheists of which you speak. Give me a link showing someone making such a nutty argument.
That was Einstein commenting on the apparent randomness at the quantum level. Your quote does not apply. Further, the fact there are many possible universes does not in any way argue that there is no god.
The fine-tuning argument goes like this:
1. The probability of our universe existing by chance is unbelievably small.
2. Our universe exists.
∴ There must be sentient designer.
On premise 1: The fact that our universe (indeed: any particular universe) is extremely improbable does not necessarily mean intent. The fact that a Royal Flush is improbable does not mean that the appearance of a Royal Flush was anything more than chance (indeed it is as likely as any other particular arrangement of 5 cards). And if you look at the example I used in the article, the probability of any of us being alive is incomprehensibly tiny (3.5 billion years of generations where -at least for each generation of sexual ancestors- a particular sperm and a particular egg must conceive). Yet we all exist in spite of the minuscule probability that we would be the lucky ones to emerge.
On premise 2: The fact that our universe exists does not necessarily mean it was intended to exist. Its existence only tells us which of the many possible universes 'won'. Our universe 'won'. There is no way to tell from the mere fact of its existence that our universe came from chance or from a sentient designer.
On the conclusion: The conclusion, however, presumes intent and then from that intent it presumes an intender (a sentient designer). The reason (clearly shown in premise 1) is because the probability of our particular universe (indeed: any particular universe) is tiny. That is, it is just too much of a stretch to believe this happened by chance.
That is the incredulity fallacy.
The possibility that our particular universe was the winner of the existential lottery.
"The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale." -- Richard Dawkins
That is not a theist argument; a god is not a conclusion. A god is always first cause. The theist argument is:
Our existence is the conclusion derived from the theist argument. Yes, the theist argument does presume intent. A sentient designer (a god) is always first cause. Since a sentient designer created the universe then our universe exists with a probability of one. The argument is not fallacious; it is a quite logical argument but does require accepting a sentient designer as truth.
Lotteries are intentionally designed to have winners; the intended purpose of a lottery is for there to be winners. Winners have been an integral part of the lottery from the first instance of the lottery's existence because the lottery was intentionally designed to function that way.
How in your mind do you see this as Dawkins claiming that a designed universe is too incredible to believe? That quote is Dawkins opining on the improbability of life. I would think that most theists would agree with him (not excluding atheists from the agreement either).
Now you are just playing semantics. Not interested in musical labels.
I was expecting that you would have another sentence that makes a point. Nice prelude on the concept of a lottery. Where does this take us?
Theists do not accept that life is improbable; life is a certainty with a probability of one. Life in the universe was unavoidable because life was an integral part of the intended design of the universe from the first instance of that universe's existence. The theist argument is that the essence of life is the intent of a sentient designer.
Stating the theist premise backwards is not a matter of semantics; that's a misrepresentation of what theists state. Theists state that the universe exists because it was intended to exist. The existence of the universe is not improbable.
A winner is the result of a designer's intent. Players make choices, some win and some lose, and the randomness appears to be natural selection. But the game was deliberately designed for there to be winners. A winner isn't improbable; a winner is a certainty.
Which makes everything a non-debate: God did it. Show me the evidence. I just believe.
But this has nothing to do with my question (here is the context):
My question remains: How in your mind do you see this as Dawkins claiming that a designed universe is too incredible to believe?
Yes a winner is a certainty. A particular winner is a probability (before the event of course).
'God did it' is the theist position. The 'fine-tuning argument' is a response to the demand for evidence.
Everything we observe in the universe (without exception) is a consequence of the Big Bang. The existence of anything in the universe is the result of a chain of events that happened and could not have happened any other way. The existence of everything was an integral part of the universe at the first instance of the universe's existence. Otherwise what does exist wouldn't exist.
Theist state that the universe was created by a sentient creator and everything we observe is a consequence of an intended, designed creation; an intended, designed Big Bang. (That's analogous to designing a lottery.)
Dawkins is stating that the intrinsic nature or property of life without which life could not exist is statistical improbability on a colossal scale. What Dawkins claims is that life is a result of random chance.
But the existence of life was an integral part of the universe from the first instance of that universe's existence. Life is an intrinsic property of the universe; life is not improbable. Life may be rare and life may be fragile but the existence of life is direct evidence of certainty.
And if that assumption is hard and fast (as it is with most theists) then it is impossible to objective analyze the fine-tuning argument. If 'God did it' is underlying all reason, the fine-tuning argument has no meaning as it seeks to conclude what the theist already holds as truth. Begging the question. Redundant. Pointless.
I think you mean to say that Dawkins finds life to be highly improbable.
Dawkins does not make that claim. He would say that we do not know the origin of life but it seems likely it emerged from non-life. As for species (evolution) Dawkins would state that evolution is a very well-defined (not random) process that operates based on complex changing conditions in the environment, random -as fas as we can tell- mutations in RNA duplication, and natural selection. He would not say that life is a result of 'random' chance.
In fact, maybe I should let him speak for himself :
Maybe so. But it all began with a Big Bang. And everything we observe is directly connected to the Big Bang by an unbroken chain of events that could not have happened any other way. Improbability is pointless when what is cannot be what is not (or what may be possible). Existence is undeniable objective and subjective truth that has eliminated all possibilities.
The debate is about whether or not the Big Bang was godless.
Life has been an integral part of the universe since the Big Bang. Everything we observe in the universe is a consequence of the Big Bang. Since life exists then life cannot be improbable; life in the universe is a certainty as a consequence of the Big Bang. The origin of life is the origin of the universe, just as with everything we observe in the universe.
The Big Bang established the rules of the game. Every argument about how the game is played depends upon the rules established by the Big Bang. The question is whether or not the game was designed.
Why do you presume that the singularity necessarily could only be as it was? We do not know the origin of the singularity and, accordingly, we do not know that it could not have had slight differences which could manifest into any of the other possible universes. So how can you possibly preclude all other potential universes?
This article is specifically about the fundamental flaw in the fine-tuning argument. It is a critique of logic. The failure of the fine-tuning argument to avoid the fallacy of incredulity does not mean that the Big Bang was godless. It merely means that the fine-tuning argument does not tell us anything about whether or not a sentient designer was behind it all. The fine-tuning argument fails to advance understanding because it is unsound.
Nerm, it makes no sense to affix probability to that which is known; the exercise will always result in p=1.0. Probability theory is only applicable in cases where we do not know for certain. So yes the probability that our particular universe exists is 1.0. We exist so the probability of life existing in our universe is 1.0. Big deal. The probability that any particular universe might exist is 1 / N where N is the number of potential universes. As we gain information about these universes and the physics involved we might change the probabilities accordingly. But sans any information other than N, the probability of any particular universe existing is 1 / N.
That is a good question, but that question is not the topic of this article.
Could have maybe but didn't. What happened happened and could not have happened any other way. Existence is irrefutable, undeniable objective and subjective truth.
Everything we observe as objectively real is a consequence of a chain of events beginning withe the Big Bang that could not have happened any other way. Existence isn't a possibility; existence is a certainty. The many factors were set perfectly; we know that with certainty because we can observe existence. What's done is done, what happened happened, and could not have happened any other way. Otherwise we could not observe what we observe.
We cannot go back in time and tweak the Big Bang. Dreaming about what might have been if any of the factors were slightly different isn't objectively real. It isn't a matter of speculating about what must be set perfectly; the many factors were set perfectly. The only means of determining what factors must be set perfectly is by observing that the factors were set perfectly. There aren't any other possibilities. What we observe is a measure of perfection.
What must be set perfectly was set perfectly. That measure of perfection is not an abstraction; that measure of perfection is objective reality. What must happen really did happen and could not have happened any other way to achieve perfection. Anything else would have been less than the perfection we directly observe as objective reality.
The logic is not flawed because the Big Bang was not flawed. The Big Bang resulted in an observable measure of perfection. The existence of the universe is indisputable, irrefutable, undeniable objective and subjective truth of attained perfection.
The posit of the fine-tuning argument is that perfection can't be attained by random happenstance. Attaining perfection requires deliberate, intentional, directed creation. The perfection observed in the universe isn't the result of statistical randomness or winning the lottery. Every example of perfection observed in existence is a direct result of the Big Bang having been created to be perfect.
Why could it have not happened any other way?
Why are you making obvious statements?
Perfection.
Perfection, no doubt about it.
And there you have it! The universe is perfect ! What were we thinking??
Objectively, yes, since all the factors are perfect for the universe to exist. Perfection can be quantified and the universe is the proof.
look NEO, how are you sure
you are not stuck in the matrix in a cocoon of amniotic fluid, with your solid thoughts being diluted till selling them cannot be bought, on solid grounds
with liquid assets, as it all sounds like dum <> mud whence combined
What happened happened and could not have happened any other way. How do we know? Because we are still alive.
How do we know?, and how do we know we are alive?, as my example was computer generated ?
It's the question that drives us. Without the question, an answer has no purpose.
Why bother asking the question if you choose the easiest answer that requires no real thought and demands belief without evidence, aka "faith"?
My grammar school math teachers used to ask us to write out how we came up with the answer instead of just writing in the answer. How would a believer go about doing this when their equation would necessarily require not solving for A and B and just jumping to solve for "X"? "Hey teach, X equals sixty nine." "And how did you get that answer Billy?" "Your equation was too hard so I picked a number I really liked the sound of and just decided to have faith in it...".
By eliminating the possible then what remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Each of us exist because what happened happened and could not have happened any other way. There isn't any uncertainty in our existence. Introducing possibilities only increases the improbability of our existence but does not change the truth of our existence. The truth of our existence has eliminated all of the possibilities. Our existence, no matter how improbable, must be truth.
We can trace our origin to the first instance of existence of the universe. The sequence of events from that first instance of existence to our present existence could not have happened any other way. The creation (by whatever means) of the universe created us; no matter how improbable that truth must be true. There isn't any uncertainty, we exist. What happened happened and could not have happened any other way.
Our existence is directly connected to the creation of the universe with certainty. But creation of the universe happened and could not have happened any other way. The only remaining question in our existence is how and why the universe was created.
I will try one last time to get on the same page with you on this one:
Basis:
I am not supporting chance in this article. This is not a pro-chance article. This article refutes the idea that the low probability of our universe existing (indeed: any particular universe existing) means it was necessarily the intent of a designer.
Well Tig, if there is no design intent, what is left is chance. You used the word, "luck" here:
Right or wrong?
I wrote that this article is not 'pro-chance'. That should mean to you that the article was not written to promote chance. And that would be correct; this article was written to refute the fine-tuning argument. In particular, to show it is an argument from incredulity. Which it most certainly is.
Repeating now what I just wrote to you in my prior comment:
If you are genuinely trying to understand points I make then I will assist. If you are just nitpicking words to try to find some trivial gotcha, I am not interested in playing.
refutes,
would be TiGs point i believe, as that is how i interpreted his commentary on said article, but, if i'm incorrect in my comprehension disability, i would hope he would correct my misinterpretation.
Me too, "Iggy." I keep looking for an inroad to the heart of this discussion and encountering versions of "Do Not Disturb."
Yes, please. Can we begin and keep it plain and simple so as to keep down "do-overs."
too damn late for moi',
but ive found TiG to be more than willing to"teach" and explain, but so many around here, tend to waste his time, and wish not to truly 'learn' and i am not saying that of you, as i stated i just recently became awre of you, and i beware i put myself, and where ever i feel like being, but i wish not to upset seeders seed, as i respect an informed mind, but disrespect mined , cause it's the only respect i can obtain
stripped is how i prefer my striped bass
drum fish
Well! TiG, it has been 18 hours and counting. . . .
What are you waiting for from me?
Nevermind. I will wait for the next 'ship' to pass by!
I don't think that the "fine tuning argument" can be used as a proof of God. The fact that the temperature of such and such needed for life is x , and only x and cannot vary by even the smallest amount, does not prove that temperature was achieved by intention. All it really proves is that if the temperature was not achieved we wouldnt be here talking about it. But it was.
Nor does the unpersuasiveness of the fine tuning argument prove that this existence was not designed.
Agreed. The fact that the fine-tuning argument is fallacious does not mean the universe was not designed by a sentient entity.
So to be very clear, since others seem to think that this article is arguing 'there is no god', this article never suggests anything of the sort. Its author, in fact, never suggests anything of the sort. Indeed, the author routinely offers that a sentient creator of the known universe is a possibility.