As a relatively recent arrival here at TSZ, I am somewhat intrigued to still see the Fine-Tuning Argument in regular rotation. It appears often in comments, but the two most recent OP’s that I have come across dedicated to the topic are Mung’s ‘The Wonder of Water‘ and RobC’s ‘The Big Numbers Game‘.
That I find the Fine-Tuning Argument completely unconvincing will not come as a surprise to anyone who has read any of my comments on TSZ. But I think it is worth taking a moment to explain why that is as my reasoning differs slightly from that of others whose comments I have seen. In a comment on the ‘Wonder of Water’ thread, Joe Felsenstein comes closest while referring to the ability of the Schrodinger Wave Equation to model all of the properties that we see expressed in Chemistry:
“If Michael Denton’s Intelligent Designer wants to fine-tune properties of water she has to do it by tinkering with the SWE. Which would mess up a lot else.”
In a UD post cited on RobC’s OP, vjtorley argues (with his emphasis) that God fine-tuned the universe because He wants us to discover His existence through the fine-tuning of the cosmos.
I will circle back to Joe Felsenstein’s comment momentarily.
For starters, it is important to make certain that everyone is familiar with the idea of Kettle Logic as expressed by Sigmund Freud in “The Interpretation of Dreams”. That is, using multiple arguments which are inconsistent with one another.
The example used by Freud is that of a man who is accused of returning a borrowed kettle to his neighbor in a damaged condition. He responds with the following 3 arguments:
1- The kettle was undamaged when he returned it.
2- The kettle was already damaged when he originally borrowed it.
3- He never borrowed the kettle in the first place.
Individually, any one of these arguments might be true. However, used together they represent an absurdity since they are each mutually exclusive of at least one of the remaining two.
To relate this to the Fine-Tuning Argument, I will put forth 3 statements that reflect the position of proponents of the argument as I understand it. We can hash out semantics in the comments.
1- An infinitely powerful being, God, created the Universe ex nihilo.
2- The same being carefully tuned a number of fundamental physical constants to extremely narrow ranges outside of which life as we know it would not be possible.
3- God’s creative hand is clearly visible in the structure of our Universe and its properties.
As with the Kettle Logic example above, any one of these three arguments might be true by itself. However, also as with the previous example, I don’t see any way that all three can be true simultaneously.
Scenario A: Assume statement 1 is true – If God is infinitely powerful and God created the Universe from nothing, then there can be no limit as to which values God could set physical constants to. If he literally sets the rules, then he would be able to make any combination of values work for his desired outcome (If 1, then not 2). And whatever set of values he chose, it should appear to any observers who might emerge within the Universe to be a brute fact (If 1, then not 3).
Scenario B: Assume statement 2 is true – If there are only very narrow ranges of physical values that will allow life to emerge, then God could not have created the Universe from nothing. In that case there must be a pre-existing substrate upon which reality is built which limits the creative actions of God (If 2, then not 1). And similarly to Scenario A, if the constants were set at the beginning, they would appear to any observers in the Universe to be an unchanging brute fact (If 2, then not 3).
Assuming that statement 3 is true brings me back to Joe Felsenstein’s comment that I quoted above. The chemical properties of water are indeed exceptional. However, as Joe points out, changing anything about the properties of water would necessarily change the nature of all of chemistry since water is made up of components which are common to all elements.
Deducing the creative action of God would require the observation of something that did not follow the established norms of the universe. The divine nature of Jesus is not believed based upon the observation of his normal habits of respiration and digestion for example. It is rather believed based upon the accounts of miraculous events in the Gospels which stand out from everyday commonplace events.
One way to look at it is as the difference between what I have occasionally heard described as tuning (setting of initial conditions) and tinkering (on-the-fly adjustments). Experiencing a miraculous event could lead one to deduce Divine action in the Universe. However, the mere fact that the event is miraculous means that it departs from the expected pattern of natural occurrences (If 3, then not 2).
Since this is my first OP, I apologize in advance for any formatting errors. I also apologize if I have misrepresented the position of proponents of the Fine-Tuning Argument. I would be happy to have my understanding enlightened.
My exposure to the argument has come primarily by way of Christian Apologists such as William Lane Craig and Fr. Robert Spitzer. Therefore, my statements here are primarily informed by that mindset versus more esoteric versions of Christian belief or by ID.
From the OP:
I don’t believe that I have ever seen the fine tuning argument expressed in this manner. I sense a straw-man.
I don’t believe that I have ever seen the fine tuning argument expressed in this manner. I sense a straw-man.
From the OP:
Yes. But I believe it was an Israelite who said this, not some Christian apologist.
I believe I sense a fine tuning of the fine tuning argument.
The world can’t be fined tuned, because why would God need to fine tune a world which he already fine tuned.
Therefore…nature!
Thus my theory for the creation of the angels. God created the original universe, which was more or less already tuned at creation, and then created the angels to do the fine tuning. Problem solved. God is not a knob-twiddler. He delegated that to the angels.
Don’t waste your time! You’ve already wasted mine until this very pivotal moment…
Life is short…
Here’s the argument as phrased by Robert J. Spitzer.
Note that nothing in the OP even remotely resembles this argument, indicating to me that while the author of the OP makes reference to Spitzer, he appears to be totally ignorant of what Spitzer actually says. Probably just another case of “can’t be bothered to read what someone who might be friendly to ID actually wrote, because it’s obviously nonsense.”
Also note the complete absence of appeal a God involved in fine-tuning the constants by twiddling knobs.
Much like you see teleology everywhere you look, it is not particularly surprising to me that you see Straw Men at every turn. Instead of ignoring the explicit disclaimers that I attached to my OP and trying to attack my credibility (which is quite comical), perhaps you could suggest a clarification that would be more to your liking?
Mung,
You beat me to it.
RoyLT,
How many universes made from random accidents would it take to over come the improbability of the conditions required for life? Then the genetic information required for the origin of life and the diversity we observe? You really think Occam’s Razor favors this hypothesis? The infinite multiverse caused by shxx happens.
RoyLT,
He decided to create the universe with those extant materials. Isn’t it pretty cool we can make computers with them 🙂 Computers made with materials created by a cosmic accident? Oh I guess we have infinite multiverses to make this a coherent argument 🙂 Infinite multiverse the simplest argument. I’d love to see the most complex one.
And they can even evolve into complex organisms, albeit with limitations not known in designers.
Seems you keep missing that one…
Glen Davidson
Mung,
Personally I don’t see a huge distance between Spitzer’s case and the fine tuning referenced in the OP – though I do have comprehension issues, blinded as I am by materialism. I guess it’s a strange, impossibly subtle argument that can only be comprehended by those that buy it.
Mung,
Pathetic
It sounds amazing like exactly as I described it.
It has nothing to do with what God could or couldn’t do (Rumraket actually thinks that’s what the argument is?), its about what nature can and can’t do.
And a grown man wrote it!
What is he comparing any life form being exceedingly improbable to Rumraket? To no life forms, that’s what! Not to a life form God made, little boy.
It does if the proposed “explanation” is God. It takes half a brain cell to understand that. Of course we can’t count on you or Mung for that
No, the (not so ) subtlety is lost on you. The assumption of a God already includes the God has powers which are either beyond our grasp, or is entirely omnipotent-this is already part of the premise. You can attempt to reject that premise, if you wish, but the fine tuning argument is not one which is arguing that a God would have powers beyond what we have.
Instead it is arguing about what nature is likely to be able to accomplish. What are the odds that nature could accomplish what we see, given the extreme difficulty of the accomplishment.
If your argument is, “Well, it would be hard for a God as well…” good luck with that one.
Was Adam ever a little boy? If not, did he appear fully formed as an adult with the memories of a child or did his memories start from the moment he was created by your god?
You see, once you start talking about “life forms that god made” you are presented with questions that don’t even make sense to ask, never mind answer.
Did the life forms that “god made” come with instinctive behaviours? How did they know how to rear their young if they themselves were never young? Did god make them with memories (avoid this plant, eat this plant) intact and fully formed, or did they have to learn what and how to eat themselves after creation?
Well, what are the odds? Unless you can state them you’ve no reason to claim they are stacked against nature.
You talk as if you have some knowledge of what nature can and cannot do, but given that you’ve never studied that or demonstrated that you have any significant insight beyond what your old book says it’s unclear how you can state that the accomplishment was “extremely difficult”.
For all you know on every planet similar to this one we have similar life forms. Dolphin like things swimming in the oceans, bird like things flying.
Likewise it’s perfectly possible (after all, there are no restrictions on what you believers can imagine) that your god made the multiverse itself and it’s real and it does exist and that your god is quite content with some of those universes not supporting life. You talk about our inability to comprehend your god’s power but then turn around and state that multiverses are beyond it’s capability.
How do you that this time your god did not want to “fine tune” and instead created the multiverse? Answer: You don’t know jack shit.
OMagain,
I don’t believe in Adam and Eve, its a story, so why are you asking me this inane question?
It’s lucky for you there are people unlike you in the world or you’d not be sitting in front of a computer.
Q: How’s the world work?
A: Dunno, god made it and his powers are beyond our grasp so let’s not even bother to try and work it out. Pass the antelope.
What’s the difference between god creating an animal and god creating Adam? You believe in the former but the latter is “just a story”?
What life form are you talking about then? Did god make it as a fetus then drop it on the floor? Or was it created as an adult with knowledge of how to live?
What religion are you?
Blah, blah, blah.
Look, it’s pretty simple, here’s premise 1 of the FT argument in Mung’s proposed version (Spitzer’s):
Are God’s superpowers able to contradict the above premise yay or nay?
If they are, FT can’t work as an argument for God’s existence. Is logic beyond your own powers?
The non-skeptic kind. You know the kind that is skeptical?
We don’t know how “difficult” it is for nature to accomplish that. A proper explanation would involve a fully fleshed theory from which the current state of affairs follows. Just imagining a being with superpowers explains nothing, actually it’s a rather childish approach. One that’s failed over and over throughout
history as an explanation, consistently. What makes you think it will work this time around?
So then you argument is not with the fine tuning argument per se, but rather you don’t believe we can know how hard it is for life to form.
Again, good luck with your own arguments.
I’ve already said I think the question of why the constants are what they are is an interesting one. That’s not the same as saying there’s any fine tuning or that the FT argument has any merit. The point of the OP, one that BTW I’ve been arguing for for quite a long time, and one you keep trying hard to ignore is that it doesn’t work as an argument for God’s existence
You can call “something other than nature” whatever you like.
Some people call that God.
I call that nothingness.
Are you going to address the logic or not? I already know the answer
LOL. Still blathering on I see. Keep banging those rocks together phoodoo.
That’s not how it works. I’m sorry but your analogy there is just plain wrong.
You are supposed to be able to compare the probabilities that one of two explanations would yield the evidence we have.
The evidence to be explained, is the values of the physical constants of the universe, which are in a very narrow range which are conducive to the origin, existence and evolution of life.
It is presumed that God wants life to exist. That desires that there be intelligent moral agents of some kind. But God could create life without going through the process of cosmological expansion, galaxy formation, generations of stars, the origin of life, evolution and so on and so forth. He could basically just create a universe that is empty space, stuff some stars and planets in there, and then magic life into existence on a planet in that universe. No reason to bother with fine-tuning the physical constants to be conducive to that long and convoluted series of events. God could just wish it into existence, and then sustain it through his divine will, regardless of what kinds of laws God made inside that universe.
But the evidence we have is that life and the universe really did go through that long arduous process.
So the question is, how likely is it that:
1. God would do it that way?
2. Nature would do it that way?
If 1 >>(much greater than) 2, we believe 1.
If 2 >> 1, we believe 2.
If 1=2(exactly equals), or 1=~2 (they’re close but not exactly equal) we either can’t decide, or we can’t come down hard on either side. We could lean towards the greater number.
If 1, or 2, is unknown, we can’t decide.
Here’s the situation we are in: There are good arguments to think 2 is very very unlikely (at least if there is no multiverse in which the constants can change). But, is 1 even smaller still, or is it bigger? Or is it equal to or roughly so?
The problem is that we don’t know, because while we are presuming God wants there to be life, we don’t know whether God would ever do it through physics, or through direct divine intervention.
No amount of 2 being small, is going to make 1 be big, or even known.
No it doesn’t. I think you don’t understand what directionality and teleology mean, and you’re still hold by a false dichotomy (or many).
But I’m not going to try and guess. I leave it to you to explain yourself. If you care.
This is part of the ideas defended by W Lame Craig when he discusses the fine-tuning argument. If you don’t like Craig’s versions of the fine-tuning argument, then state yours.
So, can we start by saying that you don’t think that “God” created the universe ex-nihilo? “He” created it out of pre-existing stuff?
If not, then you think that “God” created the universe ex-nihilo, and you’re just playing the fool.
You keep forgetting that your imaginary friend is supposed to have created that nature that, in your imagination, cannot accomplish anything without help from your imaginary friend. Fine tuning is still about those constants, so it looks as if your imaginary friend was bound by his creation. Kettle logic.
A very important problem for you to answer: how would you calculate the odds that nature could or could not accomplish what we see? On what basis? Where are those other universes showing that we can and should use different constants to describe them? Where did you find a sample of universes to check?
It’s no surprise to me you do not apply critical thinking to your own beliefs, no.
I keep trying to remove the materialism from my own eye so that I can see to help remove it from others’, but all I get is nothing comes out and a rather sore eye..
Just imagining a computer program that can created a nested hierarchy explains nothing, actually it’s a rather childish approach.
You say this but you don’t really believe this. Right?
You calculated the probabilities of an eye evolving independently 50 times? You calculated the probabilities of each new clade in the tree of life?
“Every good scientist, regardless of his beliefs, must be as objective as possible. For one thing, instead of being overly self-confident, highly competitive, and unduly proud of my scientific skills, I am now grateful to God for any abilities I may have. Also, instead of unfairly attributing the amazing designs manifest in creation to blind chance, I and not a few other scientists ask ourselves, ‘How did God design this?” so wrote Professor František Vyskocil of Charles University, Prague, who is internationally known for his research in neurophysiology.
Astronomer George Greenstein wrote: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”
The book Science & Christianity—Four Views says:”
Visualize yourself an imaginary “control room for the whole universe…you observe rows and rows of dials that can be set to any value, and then learn that each has to be calibrated to a precise setting in order for life to be possible.
One dial sets the strength of the force of gravity, one the strength of electromagnetic attraction, another the ratio between the mass of the neutron and the proton, and so on.
As you examine these numerous dials, you see that they could have been set to different values. It also becomes clear to you, after meticulous calculation, that even a small change in any one of the dial settings would modify the architecture of the cosmos in such a way that life in it would cease to exist.
Yet, each dial is set to precisely the right value needed to keep the universe running and habitable. What should you deduce about how the dials came to be set the way they are?” (Dumb luck musta gotten lucky…again…all one needs to believe is faith…. 😉 )
Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve once said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”
What makes science even possible is the orderliness of the universe and how energy and matter behave predictably in an uniform manner given the set of circumstance.
Mathematics,physics,chemistry all spew out fundamental order and without such order any scientific works, technology and life will not exist. Who or what is behind such order? An intelligent Designer with no explanatory power?I’ll let you be the judge of that. ”
References:
1.Professor František Vyskocil of Charles University in Prague.
2.Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve.
3.Science & Christianity—Four Views .
4.Toby Huff, author.
https://m.news24.com/MyNews24/Has-Christainity-given-birth-to-Modern-Science-20120213
I’ll be sure to tell Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim thinkers that their contributions to modern science were negligible.
Well, if they’d just cherry-pick quotes instead of actually making a case, they’d be doing ID.
And what could be better than that?
Glen Davidson
I don’t see the need for calculating those probabilities. However, some efforts could be made, depending on the level of analysis. A very gross one could be to compare the number of lineages that evolved eyes to the number that didn’t. Refinements might be proposed, but I suspect you were being merely rhetorical.
This looks like a nonsensical question. The most generous way I can interpret it, it would seem that you’re asking for the probability that a new clade will be formed. The answer would be too evident though, new clades are the inevitable outcome of population divergences. As long as populations continue to exist, new clades will be formed. So, who knows what you might mean. Maybe you don’t know either, maybe you were being merely rhetorical.
Hi RoyLT,
Congratulations on an excellently argued OP. It merits a detailed reply, but unfortunately I can’t respond right at the moment, as I’m working on another OP of my own. All I will say for now is that is that if living things are not only composite but made up of components with multiple layers of complexity, then God’s freedom in designing living things is constrained: whatever world He makes must allow those layers and components to exist as well. Next, miracles don’t have to involve changing the values of fundamental physical constants. Instead, they usually involve stunning violations of the second law of thermodynamics – e.g. bringing a corpse back to life, transforming a female ovum into a male embryo, healing a withered hand, making bread and fishes materialize out of thin air, or turning water into wine. Other miracles involve a suspension of the laws of chemistry and physics – e.g. fire that does not burn (Daniel 3) or the ability to walk on water (John 6) – which can be explained by the philosophical school of thought known as concurrentism. Finally, your assumptions about brute facts are incorrect. Even if a fact is fixed and unchangeable by us, it can still point to God if we can show that had this fact been ever so slightly different, the world would have been utterly devoid of life. (I’m talking about the fly-on-the-wall argument, of course.) That’s all for now. Cheers.
I would deduce that you’re asking a loaded question.
Alternatively, you can answer for dumb luck with the mathematical calculations of probability… You’ve refrained from doing it for dumb luck vs humans intelligence; cosmological constant vs wave telescope why not do it now? Then “the loaded” question” can be dismissed….
Well, first I would start fiddling with the dials to see if I could change them.
vjtorley,
So in your view, God can’t explain the natural world: the “nature of nature” is fundamental in itself.
Like I have shit to prove to you
It should be a piece of cake for more than a couple of guys here with imagination of some natural force run by dumb luck…
I’m not asking them to fine-tune the gravitational wave telescope by trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion,trillion trillion… or more to match the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant for dumb luck’s sake….
Dumb luck? What makes you think that I accept your false dichotomies? Probability based on what? Where’s the sample of universes that we can use to calculate those probabilities?
That numbers can be changed in equations doesn’t mean anything else but that the numbers can be changed in equations. So, again, probabilities based on what?
I think you don’t understand what loaded question means. It’s a question that assumes that I accept your premises (and your false dichotomies / assumptions). I don’t.
What about this? What about we calculate the probability assuming that our sample of universes is representative? It’s much simpler. It doesn’t assume that the possibility of changing numbers in equations means something other than the possibility of changing them in the equations. It’s informed by the data instead!
So, one universe can be modelled with equations that contain such constants, out of one universe in the sample. The probability is thus: 1/1 = 1.