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.
Exactly! Unfortunately, that’s just an analogy. No dials to play with.
In quantum mechanics Hilbert space calculations lead infinite number of dimension…
I guess “dumb luck” is not only smarter than the guys at Caltech that fine-tuned the gravitation wave telescope…
It must also be eternal…
Whatta dumb luck! Can you believe this dumb luck? Dumb luck is the best!
Well crap. I just blinked out of existence. Would someone else be so kind as to turn the third knob from the left just a tad bit clockwise?
Actually, it is possible in quantum mechanics during the process of quantum teleportation… You should read that book I sent you the link to… it is more than fascinating… If it doesn’t change you, I’d be very surprised… 😉
J-Mac,
You really want me to think that you’re immature and stupid, don’t you?
I don’t really care what one thinks as long as he doesn’t contradicts himself in the same sentence…
False dichotomies? As you see them?
You are a wasting my time…come up with some solid evidence other than “I don’t like your views”!
You’re free to think about something else.
Give me one reason why I should care?
So you found The Room!? Wow! I’d help, but I’m hesitant. I might overturn that dial and blink out of existence myself. (Also, I wanted The Room to remain a secret, so I think I’ll pretend that you never wrote that. Sorry.)
I doubt you’d work so hard to convince me that you’re immature and stupid if you didn’t care about me being convinced of your immaturity and stupidity. So I don’t understand why you ask me for a reason why you should care. You seem to have a reason already. What that reason might be, I don’t know and I don’t care.
The opinions of others obviously matter to you, however you try to pretend otherwise. Otherwise why try to convince them of the error of their ways?
This comes from someone who holds to a self-defeating false dichotomy. So you hold others to standards you cannot comply with?
Nah. As I explained, but you preferred not to try and understand.
Sure, because an imaginary room with an imaginary console with lots of imaginary dials is solid evidence.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible (namely, God), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
It’s not impossible that a deity such as you believe in is responsible for the universe. There’s just no evidence for such. That’s all. Nobody is trying to “eliminate” your god, just as nobody is trying to “eliminate” Santa Claus. It’s just that when people grow up into adults there are some beliefs they leave in childhood.
So cling on to your impossible God as hard as you can Mung. Nobody is coming for it. Nobody cares enough. You don’t matter all that much. We’ll wait you all out, you’ll see……
So, let’s test one of your “truths” as you see it:
What is the origin of dumb luck, natural force, nature that was able to outsmart human intelligence by 10 ^ 67? No self-defeating, false dichotomies allowed…
So, let listen to the excuses now… since we are surly not going to see any evidence… 😉
I’m all ears…
What kind of evidence would satisfy you?
Why wouldn’t I correct the error if they contradict themselves twice in the same sentence? When I do it, they call it false dichotomy…What else can I do? Let people die in their own contradictions because they can’t accept the obvious?
OMagain,
There’s all kinds of evidence if you open your eyes. Your materialist bias is shutting you off from reality. Can you formulate a rational arguement for a random chance universe and a random chance origin of life’s diversity? If not I suggest your random chance fairytale needs a re think.
What kind of evidence would satisfy you that an alien life form created the Universe?
Often though I remember as when you have unlikely event God’s actions are always more probable explanation
My truths? Why are you making shit up? I never said anything about having my own truths.
Do you really think I will answer a loaded question? I never proposed anything involving something even remotely related to any 10^67 shit in the first place. What makes you think that I think that nature operates by “dumb luck”? I told you already, that’s your false dichotomy, not mine. I won’t answer a question loaded with your fucking assumptions. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Evidence for what? For your stupidity? That’s been your job all along. You sure are good at that. I’m convinced already. Why do you insist on showing off your incapacity for understanding? I’ve got it already. No need for more.
Deaf ones by all appearances. You haven’t understood a single point. You insist on making the very same mistakes, asking questions loaded with your own unexamined, self-defeating, assumptions, again and again and again.
I’m not buying into your bullshit. Sorry. It’s all yours to keep. I’d rather pass.
Any
I’m puzzled. What makes you think that OMagain thinks that there’s a random chance universe and a random chance origin of life’s diversity? If that’s your idea, rather than OMagain’s why should anybody provide a rational argument for something you made up?
Asking a loaded question is not evidence for some god, it’s evidence that you have some assumptions you haven’t tried to examine. Why don’t you explain yourself in this regard. Why do you think that anybody should defend a position that they don’t hold? What makes you think that failure to defend a position they don’t hold is evidence for some god?
Entropy,
Well, it was very lovely talking to you… say hello to gazz for me… tell him that foaming saliva if front of the computer screen is not recommended by health experts
Anyway… bye bye!
Entropy,
If OMagain has an alternative to a random chance universe he can make the argument. He made the claim that God is a fairytale. With this bold claim I would expect a pretty solid argument. He also said there is no evidence for God’s existence, again a very bold claim. If you think you can argue for why we have atoms that can assemble computers and living organisms plus the existence of the 4 forces without a designer go for it.
colewd,
You’re missing the point. You started with a question loaded with the assumption that the alternative to “god-did-it” is “random chance.” I asked you to explain why anybody should present a reasonable argument for random chance,. Why did you delimit the answer that way in the first place? Is it really that you think that if it’s not some god(s), then it’s random chance? If so, why? Why would that be the only alternative? I’m asking you to check if you might have some unexamined assumption.
Your question to me seems to assume many things too, but I don’t want to over-complictate our exchange so quickly. So first things first. What do you say?
Well, is there any?
I’ve read quite a number of speculations by cosmologists about the origin and nature of our universe, how it got composed of what it is (most of which remains unknown), how it developed, etc. Not one of these speculations involves EITHER any gods or any “random chance.” Instead, they all involve processes and properties which are either observed today, or are at least not inconsistent with observations.
And several of these folks address the notion of gods, but argue (IMO reasonably) that such gods would themselves need explanation, made more difficult because they would surely involve processes and properties NOT in evidence today.
Attributing the universe either to “random chance” or gods, both contribute nothing further than throwing our hands in the air and saying “magic!”
Flint,
So what is the speculation about the origin of matter? The origin of the 4 forces? Why is the universe intelligible and mathematically predictable? Why is the universe able to support life? What is the origin of genetic information?
Very interested in your answer that does not involve random chance or God.
I do believe that I’m correctly portraying how the fine tuning argument works, and why it fails.
No, I didn’t calculate that, nor are those things even remotely related to the logical structure of the fine tuning argument.
You’ve managed to confuse yourself again.
It is certainly possible that you believe that. In fact, it wouldn’t even be surprising that you believe that.
Even when you have been shown over and over that you are absolutely wrong, its likely that you still believe that.
At this stage I’ll just post this:
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.
Rumraket,
“I believe its highly unlikely the Cubs, with a 7 man roster, will win the World Series.”
“Compared to what?”
“Compared to them not winning the World Series!”
Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating that you do not understand the fine tuning argument, nor my response to it.
There isn’t one “the” speculation. Current theories (Einstein) regard matter as a sort of condensed energy, a different phase of the same stuff. Most speculations involve a single point (or nearly so) of our universe’s origin, and “matter” as we know it didn’t condense out of a plasma of energy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years.
Basically the same answer. But I think you are confusing modestly informed speculations with pure superstition and wishful thinking. If a universe is going to get started, it must have SOME properties. Some speculations hold that for an incipient universe to start and not vanish instantly, the necessary properties must fall within some narrow range. Who knows?
Good question. There has been quite a bit written about the congruence between the properties of the universe and the properties of math. Which include speculation that a somewhat different universe would be describable with somewhat different math.
While I think one can answer in great detail HOW our universe supports life (along with the speculation that the overwhelming majority of our universe does NOT support life), the “why” question seems to presume some sort of reason or motivation, which is purely a human projection.
Most proposed explanations (other than magical ones) involve a long, slow positive feedback process. At the margin, there’s some debate as to the meaning of “genetic information”. If we could take 1000 biologists back in a time machine, there might be some point where 50% of them feel they have identified “genetic information.” But there are too many very different operational definitions of “information” for there ever to be 100% agreement.
First off, “gods” is a placeholder term, undefined and unmeasurable, which translates as “I don’t know but I can’t admit it.” It’s a non-explanation for anything and everything, one size fits all. Rational people outgrow “just because” as an explanation sometime during childhood.
As for “random chance”, you need to define this term. The universe is composed of countless gazillions of interdependent variables, with a genuinely infinite number of ways of interacting with one another. There are rules which limit processes and properties, but within those rules the possibilities are without limit. I’m going to guess that by “random chance”, you mean unpredictable, but unpredictable might be nothing more than insufficient information. We can search for the information we need (we’ve found a lot of it), or we can invoke gods, which is how humanity explained basically nothing for a million years or so.
Flint,
Inductive reasoning can conclude that the incredible tight parameters are evidence of intent. Your statement that it is purely human projection is circular reasoning with no basis in objective reasoning. Welcome to the Atheist zone 🙂
A slightly different universe cannot support life. If there is no life, there is no math.
So you don’t have a clue. Join the club. In my opinion the existence of genetic information is the strongest argument for design in biology. We can quibble on the definition of information but none the less DNA is an enormous mathematical sequence and so are proteins, ncrna’s etc.
This is a classic Atheist argument from ignorance and circular to boot. There is plenty of evidence pointing to a created universe and therefor a creator. There is historic evidence for a specific creator. If you are comfortable with the Atheist dogma then you will ignore this evidence which you apparently have.
Three years ago I would have agreed with you but I now believe your argument is bankrupt.
The above does not explain anything. If there are rules that matter obeys, where did those rules come from?
READ your own question you moron and stop wasting my time!
Goodbye!
I wish I could… but alas there is no reading list I am aware of. I am told by my teachers there exist no translations of the relevant books, and even if there were, they would do you no good as the seminal insights and conclusions are cryptically skipped with aphorisms along the lines of ” Those who know already know, already understand…”
Bottom line, Kabbalah cannot be imparted without personal one-to-one interaction with a teacher, regardless of celebrity opinion to the contrary. (Madonna would be a case in point)
If you desire a reading list that would bring you closer to what I am referring to, I suggest reading up on Dao. There exist many commonalities with Dao and Kabbalah, and it took me no little time and effort to discern their differences (not that I am an expert in either)
“What kind of evidence would satisfy you that an alien life form created the Universe?”
need to chuckle
Mung, when will you realize that the two Venn Circles which represent you and I overlap significantly!?
Regarding Einstein’s version of “G-d”… Einstein was a smart man and along the lines of Maimonides, Einstein had a greater grasp than most of what G-d is not, which Einstein amusingly (somethings German humor just does not translate well) referred to as “Der Herr Gott”
Regarding … there are Jewish apologists as well.
I was most dismayed to hear from Joe Felsenstein there indeed exist Jewish rabbis who have departed from tradition and behave like Christian Apologists.
My teachers were different… the notion of “apologist” would have have at first perplexed them muchly, before provoking no little amusement.
I won’t go into specifics. Let’s just say, another great Jewish scholar (by no little coincidence) attempted to slay such silly Shibboleths by inventing the term Non-Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA) which has many commonalities to what Einstein was on about, while tangentially addressing other nuanced lines of inquiry .
Mung, you are correct – therein lies a false dichotomy and two very old straw men. I suspected I was merely helping Sal with another one of his homework assignments so I took the weekend off (better things to do) and wait and see if resident Christian apologists would rise to the occasion.
RoyLT has woven a clever reiteration of the two very old questions addressed by Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic scholars. Perhaps you Evangelical Protestants should return to the embrace of Mother Church and save yourselves a lot of grief.
RoyLT summarizes his thesis on two occasions:
Once RoyLT says The quantity of Fine-Tuned values and degree of Fine-Tunedness of each is irrelevant to the discussion. The point of the discussion is whether an infinitely powerful God who created the Universe from scratch, was somehow restricted on the parameters that he could set for said Universe, and then made occasional departures from that design is a logically coherent being.
And again RoyLT says: A Designer working with a tabula rasa should not have to ‘tune’ anything if there are no limitations on their power
1 – RoyLT invokes the “omnipotence paradox” commonly referred to as the “…can G-d create a stone so large that G-d himself cannot lift it?” question. Two textbook answers are provided by Aquinas and by Descartes.
2 – the miracle conundrum: can any event with supernatural cause be ascertained by empirical methodology? … or is such a quest a “fool’s errand?
Part of the problem here is a false dichotomy: RoyLT is assuming a very simplistic and naive notion of G-d which Einstein disparagingly referred to as “Der Herr Gott”. The false dichotomy lies in a resolution of a very simple question:
Where does the universe stop and G-d continue?
Simple question? “yes, it is”… simple answer? “no, there isn’t”
Judaism has an unfair advantage over Christianity as it is unburdened by superfluous Dogma.
Judaism in one sentence: G-d is one and unknowable.
Bringing me to the frequent references to Sean Connoll’s book in this thread:
I was intrigued with Connoll’s ambitious undertaking and after reading a few reviews, have decided to give it a miss. Connoll clearly lacks sufficient training in both Theology and Philosophy to do justice to the his list of arguments.
Connoll makes reference to the Stanford Plato site. I will leave you with those sources and allow you to make your own assessments:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
According to one review I read, Connoll states: “We can’t short-circuit the difficult task of figuring out what kind of universe we live in by relying on a priori principles”
But elsewhere states God, if he exists, can’t be a necessary being. Why? Because, Carroll says, “there are no such things as necessary beings…
It would appear that Connoll’s book is a long exercise in question begging.
Earlier, I suggested to RoyLT
The fact is – that at some point, you too must accept the fact you will be obliged to shake hands with theists and walk away in unsettled fashion; as the empirical method will never be able to confirm or deny religious experience.
QED
postscript: … of course, sauce for the empirical goose is also sauce for the pious gander!
Jerry Coyne has argued at some length for a completely deterministic universe, base on his reading of physics. Such determinism is not incompatible with our inability to predict the future, nor is it incompatible with describing phenomena as stochastic.
It is also compatible with fine tuning and with the notion that rewinding the tape would not change anything. I don’t see how it would offer any comfort for theology, however.
hmmm, I say
You believe that? … the rewinding the tape and replaying will generate identical results… bit, I mean?
I am not so sure.
Needless to say, I disagree with his reading of physics.
I’m inclined to think that it is incompatible with life as we know it and experience it. In any case, it is a creationist doctrine — creationists call it “front loading”. Coyne, of course, denies that he is a creationist, but he sticks with his determinism.
I was away for the weekend and did not have the chance to look at TSZ.
Now that I am back I must first offer a sincere apology to Mung for this response. When I responded, my browser had not refreshed and I did not see that you had already answered that concern before I had a chance to express it. I am genuinely sorry for that error.
I’m not sure what your point is with the second comment. Considering that the argument as you quoted it is taken from Spitzer’s book titled “New Proofs for the Existence of God”, if you are indeed suggesting that my referral to God as the cause cited by Apologists in the argument is a misrepresentation, then that would appear a bit disingenuous. If it is the ‘twiddling’ that you’re still hanging onto, then I can’t help you there.
Thanks vjtorley. I genuinely appreciate your support as the OP was to some degree influenced by your UD thread on Sean Carrol’s video. I’ll look forward to discussing your thoughts on it when you get a chance.
… apologies for conflating “Connoll” with “Carroll”
… morning caffeine levels too low!
This is a ‘just-so’ statement that has no explanatory power.
You just made it…