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.
Are we? I’m confused as to how determining what frame of time-experience and causation (whether real or apparent) the FT Argument is relevant to could be a digression. Humans, who experience time and efficient causation are making the FT argument. I don’t see how questions of the true nature of time, if it be different from what humans perceive saves the coherence of the FT Argument.
Yes – but you seem to have already conceded that the the experience of time and efficient causation MAY be due to limitations on our part and be illusory
or
that if not so, such limitations do not apply to G-d
At this point Christian Exegesis converges on Jewish Mysticism – we are converging on the unknowable.
Frankly, I do not know how to proceed with a coherent exchange on matters unknowable which cannot be framed in language limited by symbolic constructs which probably do not correspond to what you want to talk about.
Final Point: I am most unqualified to proceed and am already in way over my head.
Well I certainly hope to cross paths with you on further topics on TSZ. You have certainly enlightened my opinion and made me aware of how much I need to read on this topic alone.
My responses below are not meant as an attempt to sneak in the ‘last word’. If you have the chance and are so inclined, please feel free to respond. If not, I’ll look forward to meeting again elsewhere.
With a reasonably well-grounded mathematical understanding of Special Relativity (less so for GTR), I could hardly do otherwise. But since both the pitcher (Apologist whether a true Scotsman or not) and the catcher (myself et. al.) are experiencing time as the human mind interprets it, and it is contingent upon events (measurement of gravitational constant, Hubble parameter, etc) experienced in that same way, the true nature of time would seem to be irrelevant to the argument.
Agreed, and I am a perfectly comfortable with the unknowable. I don’t expect to find out within my finite lifespan whether a Creator or the Quantum Foam initiated the Big Bang. I try to follow Socrates in that regard and appreciate that each thing that I learn makes me more keenly aware of how little I understand.
But what are those constraints and how do theologians know that they exist?
it would appear (unless I am misreading the post below) that I was snookered by an imposter all along…
On an earlier post, I wondered whether RoyLT was Sal and whether this OP was a collective effort to help out on some homework assignment of his .
I am curious (not that it matters really) who hides behind the pseudonym RoyLT
I am also mildly curious (again not that it really matters) which remark of mine upset him so to prompt an apparent insult that I somehow “suck”
I feel obligated to point out the false-equivalency of comparing an anachronistic technology (iPhone in 1917) with a clear violation of natural laws (Jesus walking on water), but I will do so with a caveat because Captain Buzzkill (TomMueller) got inside my head and has me questioning which way is up:-)
Assuming all that Orthodox Christian doctrine entails, it is possible to see specifically how the Resurrection could be seen as an anachronistic technology which will be accessible to all (at least a subset of all) and understood at the End Times. I still assert that those assumptions are not rationally acceptable, but I can actually see where colewd is coming from on this one given his worldview.
TomMueller, you suck…
RoyLT,
Roy,
Before I respond I think you posted a great OP and I have enjoyed the discussion especially your exchange with Tom.
I will simply ask the question; do you understand that capability of the atom well enough to say that walking on water is a violation of natural laws?
If your PC dies you are dead in the water until you take it to someone who really understands its inner workings.
Fine tuning is evidence that we are in a created universe. The capability of the atom is evidence that we are in a created universe. The origin of genetic information is evidence that we are in a created universe. None of these alone are proof of God only valid evidence of his existence. The other piece of evidence is historic which I have come to believe over the last year is much stronger then I realized.
I actually have Tom to blame for this 🙂
The coherent bits and pieces I can glean from within your post indicate that you have in fact understood NOTHING of what I wrote earlier.
Thank you very much for being part of it. I have enjoyed it as well and, much more importantly, found it very enlightening. I still don’t find the FT Argument convincing, but I think that I understand how others might see the Universe in a way different way than I do.
I barely understand the atom well enough to survive a Graduate-level Physical Chemistry course. But I do have a large amount of personally observed data of full-grown humans completely unable to walk on top of liquid water under Earth’s normal gravitational pull. I feel pretty confident that it cannot be done and could not be done 2000 years ago either. I will refer back to my old friend Ockham in my understanding of that Scriptural narrative along with many others. It seems more reasonable that it is a fictional exaggeration included to increase the mystique of Jesus.
With that being said, and with a peculiarly open mind at the moment, of course I cannot say that there couldn’t some obscure physical explanation for locally increased surface tension (or something else along those lines).
The question that I have in response is:
Are you suggesting that all of the miraculous events of the Bible are simply mundane occurrences that we don’t understand yet?
TomMueller,
Tom with all due respect I don’t think you know what your wrote earlier. You’re thinking is based on quoting other people and their thoughts. I am interested in Tom Mueller’s thoughts not someone else’s.
RoyLT,
We know that you can walk on water by simply lowering the temperature. Why couldn’t the designer of the atom create this condition remotely at room temperature?
Yes, miracles are mundane for the creator of the universe and comparatively a chip shot. We know atoms are very sophisticated as we can create computers with their awesome properties. You and I also agree we have just scratched the surface of their capabilities as we know organized correctly they make up the human brain.
That was not the frame of reference that I intended in the original question. I’ll rephrase it.
Do you think that events narrated in the Bible such as the Resurrection should be regarded by humans as exceptional or as mundane events that we just don’t understand the physics of yet?
colewd,
What about focusing on the actual point of the thread? It works very much like the Euthyphro dilemma:
Does the universe require this precise fine tuning because God wanted it that way or not?
If the answer is yes, then fine tuning is just an illusion, one that we’ve just been able to notice, and therefore the fine tuning arguments crumbles entirely: God could have made a universe with the same fine tuning but with different constants, or no fine tuning at all, or anything in between.
If the answer is no, then nature is necessarily and sufficiently explained by the laws of nature: God could not have designed the laws of nature and therefore nature itself.
Note how William Murray’s answer to this is the same as the one provided by apologists to the Euthyphro dilemma, with hilarious implications: the laws of nature are part of God’s nature. This ungranted assumption obviously begs the question but it still means that God is constrained by nature. How can a perfectly transcendent, immaterial, timeless being be intrinsically constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, etc…?
RoyLT,
I think in historical context and say 500 years ago when we would not have had a clue how atoms worked we would see them as strictly exceptional.
Once you become convinced that we live in a created universe and start to understand the exceptional capability of the atom as we have started to over the last hundred years then I think it is rational to think of these as mundane events for the creator.
I spent the greater part of my career in the semiconductor business so my thinking here is probably not mainstream.
When I started to learn about the cell and saw experiments that with the right frequency of light applied to a protein that it would change shape started me to think of miracles like the resurrection as just advanced technology-more advanced then our current understanding.
LoL. God gets smaller by the minute. No wonder Jesus is taking so long to come back, David Copperfield is already pulling more impressive tricks
dazz,
I am struggling to follow your logic here. You explain that all is explained by the laws of nature but how do you explain the origin of those laws? Why do you think God could not have designed those laws? Simply because he had a choice of other laws?
Fine tuning is required in all system designs given atoms as the basic component.
My current job (for the last 3 years) and my Thesis Research at Grad School are both in semiconductors, so you’ll get no pushback from me on the truly remarkable properties of some materials. My question is in a different vein altogether though.
If the Resurrection is not an exceptional event, then how did it redeem mankind from the Fall?
I am not trying to walk your path for you, but I fear that your desire (at least from my perspective) to give your religious faith a scientifically confirmed empirical foundation risks trivializing the awe and mystique of Biblical mysteries that inspire the average believer.
RoyLT,
This is a theological question clearly above my pay grade 🙂
At the end of the day in my opinion that fact that you and I can have this discussion is a miracle in itself. We assume the existence of atoms but their ultimate origin we may never understand.
Because if what dictates how nature works are the laws of nature, then those laws are necessary and sufficient to explain the natural world. Why would the laws need an origin? In this view the laws are immutable, fundamental: they can’t have an origin and they CAN’T be created: they are just the way they are because that’s how nature works. Period.
To put it another way, that would mean that there’s no possible universe, no state of affairs in which these laws don’t apply
In addition to relevant quotes, my thoughts were explicitly stated for others to read, if they had the requisite reading comprehension skills. For just one example, what part of …
… do you not understand?
dazz did a better job than I of summing up your contributions to this and all previous threads:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks…
RoyLT’s frequent and unnecessary impulses to reassert his bona fides, not to mention frequent confirmations of recent arrival to the forum always did smell fishy.
Mung? possibly
Sal? … nah RoyLT appears somewhat more intelligent than Sal. OK. Maybe Sal, but only with a lot of assistance from elsewhere.
other contenders?
Applies to anybody who wants to see their gods in the misnamed “fine-tuning” bullshit. Remember, the OP is about the fine-tuning argument for the magical being. Not some stuff about what each believer, theologian, etc, may or may not believe.
Maybe not, but the writings of Aquinas are not about any “fine-tuning” as evidence for “God.” So, if Aquinas didn’t offer a fine-tuning argument for his god, then Aquinas doesn’t apply to the discussion, which is what I tried to put there, but might not be that clear.
That’s a bit convoluted. Reason does contradict faith. Thus the “need” for theologians who think that such is not possible, so there must be some other explanation.
Most people regard the five ways as proof for the magical being, but my understanding is that those were meant to be ways to describe what was meant by “God” (The Prime Mover, etc.). Apparently, Aquinas understood that non-believers would not buy those things as “arguments.” Fuzzy in my mind.
I’d discuss Romans, but it’s not useful for the main point: The OP is about “fine-tuning” as “proof” of the magical being, not about Aquinas or Descartes.
TomMueller,
Again Tom the argument you make here is circular based on others arguments like Bart Ehrman. You are assuming that he was evaluated to Devine status based on others opinions.
I had no experience with the historical arguments of Jesus until you brought Ehrman’s arguments to TSZ. I listened to a debate between Ehrman and a theologian and found Erman’s arguments suspect.
I came up with a different opinion then you did but really appreciate you bringing this to the table.
dazz,
So your opinion is that nature is the uncaused cause. I respect this logic but disagree that it explains properties of nature and may be in conflict with the big bang.
Huh? Is that part of an inside joke that I’m not aware of?
Whoops. I didn’t see this comment above until just now going back through the thread. You indeed misread the post you are referencing.
It was an artless compliment from me to you and I’m sorry that it caused confusion. I simply meant that my ability to disregard the assumptions inherent in colewd’s position had been sensibly diminished by our conversation. It is all for the good, but it’s rather more work arguing with someone when you can understand their viewpoint. Perhaps I should have put an emoji after the ‘you suck’ part:-)
No pseudonym, I assure you. I found TSZ in the Spring while looking up some blog discussions on the variants of the Problem of Evil and came across one of keiths’ posts here. If you look through some posts from earlier this year you will see me arguing (with limited success) with both stcordova and Mung. Again, sorry for the confusion.
I got it
Try reading for comprehension
As usual, my arguments are beyond your capacity to understand. The above is not what I said.
I didn’t say they know they exist. I assume you are attempting, in your OP, to present an argument that addresses the god that most theologians (or at least many) premise to exist. How would a theologian know that god is omnipotent, or what the term “omnipotent” means? How would a theologian know that god is good?
These premises are based upon logic working backwards, so to speak, to develop a picture (set of premises) of a rationally consistent god that meets the requirements that various commodities of existence (free will, morality, the universal validity of logic, etc.) dictate.
I’ve already listed some of the constraints (rationally consistent, good, fundamental ground source of existence). Those fundamental properties of god dictate the kinds of things god can create and the kinds of things god cannot create. Depending on the goal of the creation process, these fundamental qualities cannot be abridged but rather worked with.
So if the goal is creating a free will entity that has mental autonomy from material processes and has the capacity (and context) to be able to intelligently understand his situation and make choices that affect his life, this necessarily requires a very detailed and complex interaction between the soul/spirit of a person, and the material world (including their own body); how that material world behaves in relation to that person; how this relationship affects them and interacts with their concept of self and other, etc. It all must be logically consistent; and it all must serve the good while providing for the free will of a person to choose evil.
A magical world that makes no sense, is not intelligible or predictable to some degree simply will not fit that bill.
Think of creating a timepiece; if there is no such thing as time, there is certainly no reason for a timepiece. There also must be some way the timepiece can keep track of time. There are logical and physical contexts that must first exist or else a “timepiece” would have no value or meaning.
There’s a reason most theologians consider god the root of existence and that creation is kept manifest by god’s will; what do you think god had to work with in order to make the universe, if nothing existed but God? What do you think keeps it running, theologically speaking?
Perhaps the issue is clarity rather being too profound, just sayin’
It’s all good and matters not. I would have remained grateful for the exchange regardless. Your inquiries prompted me to think thoughts “unthunk” for decades.
I am glad I prefaced my initial confusion with
it would appear I indeed did, but like I just said, no matter
Where did I claim or even remotely imply that anything I wrote was in the least bit “profound”? It’s not. It’s simply an understanding of theological premises and following the logic that proceeds from those premises. Roy is arguing from a “magical god that can do anything” premise that has absolutely nothing to do with the perspective of most theologians. His argument is just the “heavy rock” argument dressed up; if god can create **anything**, then why can’t god create a functional universe like ours with **any** force constants?
That’s like saying arguing that if god can do **anything**, then god should be able to make a wood house out of plastic, or else (1) god isn’t omnipotent, or (2) there are restrictions outside of god that god must obey. It’s utterly nonsensical.
I agree with your sentiment regarding “bullshit”, but only pertaining to the blathering inanities of some unworthy opponents present. I submit that one of us has lost the drift of the original OP which was a three statement “Kettle Argument”. Statement #3 was just that: one of three statements such that all three statements could not be simultaneously consistent. Statements #1 deals with matters theological, while statement #2 deals with matters cosmological.
I have attempted (unsuccessfully it would appear) that although RoyLT’s pilpul is clever, it is by no means original and the logical inconsistencies he highlights have been recognized by some of history’s greatest minds; Aquinas and Descartes being only two.
Many besides myself would disagree with you on that point. (Stephan J Gould and his iteration of NOMA for example, and Ayala’s succinct precis of Science & Creationism in PNAS as another) Reason only contradicts overly naive and silly iterations of faith, such as often expounded here by unworthy opponents.
Again, we must disagree. Argument #3 in RoyLT’s subtle “Kettle Argument” is a restatement of G-d’s obvious presence in Creation, i.e. G-d’s knowability according to Reason as opposed to “blind” Faith. Let’s cut Aquinas some slack, after all he was writing in the 13th Century and would not parse his arguments along cosmological subtlties such as “fine-tuning”… but for all intents and purposes he and his Theological descendants are wrestling with exactly the problem as phrased by RoyLT.
My understanding of Aquinas and other worthy theologians (whose thinking surpasses unworthy opponents/apologists who frequent this site) is that religious experience is of another category than empirical investigation.
You and RoyLT may be interested in how Christian exegesis can converge on Jewish Mysticism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/illumination/
I agree with you that Aquinas’ writings seem “fuzzy” at times. My understanding of Aquinas (which seems to coincide with Gould’s and Ayala’s views) is that Reason cannot not affirm the existence of G-d, but neither can Reason contradict the existence of G-d. Aquinas seems to take it one step further than Gould or Ayala in his “Five Ways” along the lines that the “fine-tuning” of the universe (although Aquinas never employed such terminology) as we perceive it; is completely consistent with a Christian G-d, but by no means proof positive of a Christian G-d.
FTR – much has already been written on RoyLT’s thesis. Here is a quick link.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning
One might ponder what kind of universe is necessary to provide a sound basis for reason (rational models and conclusions), faith (which requires doubt), and free will (among other things, the ability to choose against reason, or choose against doubt). The universe may indeed be clearly the handiwork of God, but even the obvious can be overcome by free will. We call that denial.
OK – that was clever and I needed to chuckle… clever, but nonetheless wrong.
I have yet to see a single example of such an entity. Last I checked, every entity claimed to have free will, is also a material object bound by the laws of physics.
In fact I have a hard time seeing how it could even be proven how an action taken by one of these “free will entities”, does not have some cause in a physical interaction with the environment.
Touche. Your responses (and referenced articles – I love those Stanford summaries) gave a shock to my assumptions that was much needed. I also have developed a budding respect for Aquinas whom I haven’t taken seriously in the past.
The confusion would have been dealt with sooner, but I think we cross-posted again. I never saw that post in question. That is why it took so long for me to catch on. I was genuinely puzzled by your later email comparing me to Mung and stcordova, which prompted me to look back through the thread.
I will, however, take this opportunity to be highly offended on both Mung’s and stcordova’s behalf for your insinuation that they either could be confused with me. I only hope that they can find it in their hearts to forgive you for such an obvious affront:-)
It is what they call “the ready omnipotence of the uninformed” and I am a walking, talking case study in the Dunning-Krueger Effect.
I hope that is the case for it will comport very well with how I intuitively feel about the relationship between reason and faith. That makes me even more eager to read some of Aquinas’ works. What little I’ve read of Kant shares similarities with this view. Faith which can be scientifically confirmed would no longer seem to have the same meaning.
Your implied syllogism as stated is sound and addressed in an earlier post:
An excellent clarification of how some Christian apologists present still don’t get it
One might ponder what kind of universe would produce organisms using endless non-sequiturs in a self-congratulatory manner.
Probably one in which evolution results in organisms that use words for advantage rather than for inquiry and enlightenment.
Glen Davidson
Try to comprehend the difference between a philosophical argument based on premises and an argument about whether or not physical evidence exists and what scientific model best describes it.
Welcome RoylT.
Yes.
Since fine-tuning IS the norm of the universe, I would not classify fine-tuning as miraculous in the ordinary sense. The universe is fine-tuned not just for life, but for scientific discovery. The laws are in a form that is simple and easy to discover. Most of them are approximated by 2nd order differential equations, which makes the math tractable. Out of a sea of possible mathematical structures, this is rather exceptional. One term used to describe it is that the data are algorithmically compressible or describable in relatively compact ways like 2nd order differential equations.
Fine tuning is a factual obsevation. Whether it is miraculous or not or evidence of God is probably not formally decidable.
That said, I wouldn’t bet my soul on the multiverse being an explanation. “God did it” seems the best explanation for me, and I would accept His existence at least provisionally out of fear of the Creator.
Why do you fear the creator ???
stcordova,
Thanks. And thank you for joining the discussion of my first OP.
I agree with both parts of this statement. It is remarkable that the physical constants of the Universe are what they are. Those who wish to infer divine action are justified in doing so IMHO, as are those (like myself) who infer only nature and brute facts.
We appear to differ only in our interpretation of Pascal’s Wager and I certainly respect your desire to ‘hedge your bet’:-)
I am aware of what the difference is, which is why I ask for physical evidence. Because mere philosophical arguments are worth Jack and Shit, and Jack left town.
You can dream up any number of premises you desire in order to derive some foregone conclusion from them. If those premises aren’t subject to empirical validation, all you have is a comfortable fantasy that you have no idea whether is even true as you have not been able to verify that the premises obtain in the reality we inhabit.
I discussed Darwin’s thoughts on the matter here:
Get a load of what he meant. YIKES!
https://youtu.be/ziUdOdHKpk8
and
If there is an Intelligent Designer, he is someone to be feared.
So if we have fine tuning, it also makes these cruel works also feasible!