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.
It’s a creator who doesn’t care whether you accept its existence or not.
Why aren’t you scared to deny that evolution occurred even after the Designer has left copious evidence that it did?
If there is a Designer, it went through excruciatingly detailed efforts to indicate that life evolved. Maybe it’s a fraud, but you should be scared to say so, in your emotion-based belief system.
Glen Davidson
If the Fine-Tuner of the universe doesn’t get offended at non-believers, that would be merciful compared to a Fine-Tuner that got offended.
If the Fine-Tuner doesn’t get offended, then the question of Fine-Tuner’s existence (aka God’s existence) is merely an academic curiosity with probably no formal resolution any way.
But visiting this:
From a mathematical standpoint, however, not any combination of values makes the laws of physics so elegant and tractable. That is an aspect of fine-tuning. Physicists view this is elegant, some as miraculous.
Nobel Prize winner Wigner pointed this out:
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Dembski, an ID proponent:
Ex-ID proponent….
In your opinion, where do the laws that govern logic and mathematics originate?
I read and enjoyed ‘Design Revolution’ some years ago, but I haven’t read anything from him more recently. If what I’ve heard is correct, he’s become more aligned with the Creationist tent. I could probably look on Wikipedia or something, but I don’t care enough to check it out and thought I’d just ask you instead;-)
If the Fine-Tuner of the universe doesn’t get offended at believers, that would be merciful …
We have no clue what the creator finds offensive. He may feel indifferent. Or he may want you anally raped for using the forum’s ignore-function.
Just because you don’t think “mere” philosophical discussions are significant doesn’t change the fact that this is such a discussion. Physical evidence does nothing to support a logical conclusion based upon given premises, although it may support a scientific conclusion. This is not a debate about what the evidence indicates, but rather what conclusions can be logically drawn given the premises – and, of course, whether the premises are accurate reflections of the theological view the OP attempts to make a case from.
It wasn’t me that stated the premises, it was RoyLT. He initiated this philosophical debate. Why argue with me about it? If you have a problem with philosophy and using premises, why not argue with him?
I take this to mean that you think RoyLT has basically made an OP describing his comfortable fantasy, since I am not the one that posited the premises nor initiated this philosophical discussion. I suggest you take that up with him.
But you did initiate the premise that CNN was not reliable, but now you seem to refuse to say what news sources you think ARE reliable.
That’s a philosophical argument that you appear to be running from.
Try to learn the difference between stating an opinion and postulating a premise for a philosophical debate.
Is that a philosophical premise or a an opinion?
Or a way of dodging a question?
You gave the “opinion” that CNN was not a reliable news source because they had a “philosophy” of flagrantly distorting the news , so why are you so unwilling to name any alternate news sources who do better?
I think that’s philosophically disingenuous, but I am willing to hear you explain how perhaps its just plain disingenuous.
Do you come here to give opinions that you don’t want debated?
What are you, a Fox News journalist or something?
It’s advice. Is English your first language?
My not answering your question is unrelated to the philosophical argument in this thread, my opinion about CNN, and my advice to you about how to identify various kinds of discussions. I’ve found Sharyl Atkisson to be a pretty reliable source of information.
I’m not unwilling.
Reliable sources of relatively unbiased information are pretty difficult to come by. Generally speaking, I have to go to sources biased both left and right and filter down to what both agree on, throw out the rest then watch for a while to see how the story changes over time. If more information comes to light, do all sources report on it? What kind of language do they use? How apparent is the bias in that language? What kind of stories do they not report on? Etc.
It’s kind of hard to take a new source seriously when they get caught red handed faking that they are on location. Even Jon Stewart called that out.
Or, when CNN doesn’t even bother to verify the identity of government officials on the phone before interviewing them on air:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKLFgsbKl8A
And those are just the people who have deliberately revealed they were pranking CNN.
CNN caught staging a protest in London:
Here’s a report about how CNN produces content sponsored by foreign countries and puts it out as news.
Do you doubt that? Here’s the evidence – you can read the tiny disclaimer at the bottom of the pictured story.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-business-state-sponsored-news
Of course, CNN isn’t the only news media company that gets paid to paint rosy pictures of foreign countries or to push certain agendas in this country. It’s just the worst and most laughably obvious.
I posted in this thread to debate something that was offered up for debate by the OP. Why on Earth would anyone want to debate someone’s opinion? Do you work for CNN or something?
It is the basis of the opinion that is debated.
And you are consistently misrepresenting my position and arguing against assumptions you have made regarding what I wrote in the OP.
If you are more interested in getting my argument DQ’ed on a technicality, then have at it. If, however, you are interested in trying to have a reasonable discussion of the relative merits of our respective positions…
Question 1: Do you believe that God had any choice in the way he set up the structure of the Universe?
I don’t have a belief about it one way or another.
Upon further reflection, if we are talking about the fundamental force constants and such, I think that those variables set at what they are produce this kind of universe. It’s nonsensical to think that god could make the gravitational constant, for example, twice as strong in this universe but have the same effect, or change the cosmological constant to a much larger number but not change its effect on the formation of astronomical structures. Those forces get their values from us by how they describe behaviors. IOW, force values are behavioral descriptions and predictions. Gravity cannot be “twice as strong but have the same effect” because it is the effect that determines what we call the strength value.
If the effects of force interactions were different, then we would have different values for them. So the idea of making a universe that acts the same as this universe but with different force values is nonsensical; the force values are assigned according to how matter behaves and interacts. It’s a logical non-sequitur to think you can change those values and make the same universe that behaves the same way – of course you can’t, just like you cannot make a square circle or make 1+1=3.
Force value constants are assigned because of how they interact and their effects. Even if I can create physical triangles with the power of my mind, f I want to create an equilateral triangle I cannot do so using unequal angles. If I want to make it metal I cannot make it out of anything other than a metal. If I want it to be green I cannot use any other color. If I want a universe to behave like this one, I cannot employ other force value constants, because what they are now are why this universe behaves the way it does.
Now, do I think God can create different universes that have different force values and relationships? Yes, I do, and I think God has in fact created such universes.
Why do you think that? What “evidence” leads you to believe that?
WJM is very much like Mung in that regard. You should try asking WJM about objective morality and if it exists or not some time……
William J. Murray,
So God can’t explain why nature is the way it is. It just is: the laws of nature are fundamental. In this view God is at best, an invisible “universe dialer” following a cosmic user manual to produce universes. That doesn’t sound at all like the kind of God that is “pure existence”
In Christian theology the created world did not always exist. So it cannot be the case that the laws of nature could be fundamental.
In Christian theology God not only created the world but he sustains it in its existence at ever moment, and that includes sustaining what we call the laws of nature. So again, it cannot be the case that the laws of nature are fundamental.
Do you understand?
If by using the word “So” to begin this you are implying what you said is a logical consequences of what I said in the prior post, then I respond by saying that I have no idea how you could possibly infer that from what I said. As I have already said, most theologians will agree that god has certain characteristics that God cannot change, like rationality, goodness, etc. It is a rational necessity that if you want to make an equilateral triangle, all the angles must be X, and that if you want it to be made of wood, you must use wood. If you want it to weigh 5 lbs, then there is a whole slew of logically and physically necessary contexts and constraints that are required before that can happen. “Weighs 5 lbs” doesn’t mean anything without an entire context.
“Physical laws” are not prescriptive, dazz; the are descriptive. Do you understand what that means? It means that in any universe that behaves like this one, the force constants will have the same interactive ratios and values because those values and ratios are descriptions of how phenomena behaves. If one changes the behaviors, then we will measure different ratios and values.
Force values and interactive ratios are descriptions of behaviors. What RoyLT is asking is if one can change the values and ratios and still have the same universe (behavior of phenomena). He has the cart before the horse.
Think of it like this: God makes the universe behave the way he wants it to behave. We then come along and describe that behavior with what we call force values and interactive ratios. To ask if god can change the values and have a universe that behaves the same is a logically nonsensical question because the values themselves are nothing but a description of that behavior.
I
I do understand. It’s you who doesn’t understand the premises of the fine tuning argument imply the laws of nature are fundamental, putting it at odds with your Christian theology. How many times do we need to explain that to you?
In most theologies there exists what is referred to as spiritual dimensions or heaven, which I think have behaviors different from this one. I think such realms would necessarily be subject to the same basic characteristics of God. God can create different kinds of universes that behave different ways, and if spiritual universes exist, some form of what we call “physics” would describe behaviors there as well.
Evidence doesn’t lead me to believe anything; I choose what I believe via free will. The evidence that, IMO, validates that worldview (not that I need it for my personal belief) is the afterlife evidence that has accumulated for hundreds (if not thousands) of years.
That doesn’t make any sense. You’re essentially saying that God can make the universe work the way he wants, and at that point he has to stick to it. But that must mean he could make a universe in which math doesn’t work like in ours. Is there a possible universe that God can make where the descriptive math is just like ours, but with different constants, where life is viable? If he can, then fine tuning is just illusory.
But saying he can do that amounts to dispensing with math (and logic) altogether.
It’s also quite ridiculous to say that he can do it anyway he wants, but then he’s forced to stick to it: if there’s a possible universe in which the constants are different, but the outcome is the same as ours, what makes you think he couldn’t tweak the laws on the fly?
The fine tuning argument has no such premise.
Only once. That’s all it took for me to reject it.
God could have created a different universe with different laws of nature. A universe generating machine could have generated different universes with different laws of nature until it just happened to generate one like ours. There could be chaos. There could be nothing at all.
God can make a universe behave any way he wants as long as he doesn’t violate his own nature. God cannot violate its own nature, of course.
God cannot make a universe in which 1+1=3 because that violates fundamental logical principles, which are an essential aspect of the nature of god.
Good thing, then, that I never said it. God can make different kinds of universes that behave differently. That doesn’t mean god has to violate math, logic or its inherent goodness to do so, just as I can make all sorts of different paintings using the same fundamental brushes, tools and kind of paint.
You’re apparently not understanding something: there are no constants to tweak. There is no big control board with dials that god twists around to “stronger” or “weaker”; god generates behaviors of phenomena. We then describe that behavior using terms and numbers.
I didn’t say god had to “stick with” those behaviors; of course god can change behaviors if god wishes to. God can make the gravity behave in a fashion where it is twice as attractive as it is now, and we would describe that as gravity becoming twice as strong. There are all sorts of reports of miracles where events or people behave differently than is expected or predicted according to normal models (physics).
But to say that god can make gravity twice as strong but it would have no dramatic effect on the universe is nonsensical. It is only by its effect would our description of gravity change to reflect the new behavior. You can’t make gravity twice as strong and it not affect behavior because the value of its strength is determined by the behavior.
I don’t think Dazz understands that the term “law of nature” is a simply a label for a set of behaviors; there is no prescriptive law; a law of nature is a description of behavior – nothing more. The only way to “change the value” of a law of nature is to change the behavior. If you change the behavior, you no longer have the same universe.
Yeah, it’s a common attitude here at TSZ. It’s like the universe generating machine has a bucket of laws it can reach into in order to program a new universe such that everything in it obeys those laws.
I do understand the laws are descriptive. What I’m questioning is, if the “nature of nature” is such as you can have universes in which those laws don’t apply, or don’t work as a descriptive model of that universe if you prefer.
For example, a universe where the same laws apply, but the constants are different, is still a universe described by our same laws. A very different universe, but fundamentally described by the same equations.
The question is, could God possibly make a universe where those equations don’t apply? is a universe where our physics break apart, possible at all? If the answer is yes, could any of those universes support life the way we know it or any other way?
Isn’t that the logic of fine tuning argument ? Each of x number of parameters “fine tuned “ to produce a result( life sustaining ) ? And the one fine tuning is the intelligent designer?
If you mean gravity would be the “same kind of behavior” whether it was 1x or 2x or 3x its current value, okay.
With different variables in the equations, if we postulate that we are talking about a universe with the same kinds of behaviors only different values for those behaviors. I’m not sure how far that could go, thought, without causing different kinds of behaviors altogether.
If you mean a universe where there is no behavior that corresponds to gravity, or no behavior that corresponds to entropy? My guess would be that it would be possible, but I’m not sure what kind of universe would could exist without gravity. A universe without, or with less entropy might be a bit easier to imagine.
IMO, the condition of “intelligent life” carries with it an enormous package of internal and external necessary conditions. I would suggest that the ratio of packages of physics (with entirely different or just variable constants compared to our own) that can support intelligent life is extremely small in contrast to the number of universes that cannot support intelligent life.
I think that’s the point of the ID argument: that in the total range of possible configurations of all possible universes, those that can support life represent so small a fraction that you have one of two options: an unlimited universe-generating source, or a source that designed the universe (or, if we’re adding other such universes, designed the universes that exist) in order to be hospitable to intelligent life.
The universe-generating machine concept has already been addressed philosophically as is basically just a form of begging the question.
But that doesn’t mean that those particular values are the ONLY ones that can support intelligent life, only that the ratio of life-supporting to non-life-supporting is extremely low, indicating design. Out of a large enough number, 1 life-supporting universe or 1000 represents nearly the same ratio of possibility.
That’s not what the FT is about. The FT argument is very clearly constructed on the necessity of the constants and laws as we know them. If universes with other descriptive laws are possible, we have no idea how many of them are life permitting. We can only conclude life permitting universes represent such a small fraction of all the possible ones if those configurations are restricted to combinations of constants with these and only these laws of physics.
If we entertain the possibility of other types of universes, maybe all of them have the same kind of restrictions, maybe none of them do, maybe all them can support life, who knows? and the number of potential configurations of universes under who knows what other laws could very well astronomically outnumber the known ones.
dazz,
So how do you explain the origin of a universe built with 4 components, protons, neutrons, electrons and photons that is so precisely tuned that these components can assemble into an organism that can observe that universe?
If the God hypothesis is not the explanation with the fewest assumptions, what is?
The God “hypothesis” doesn’t even qualify as an explanation of anything at all.
dazz,
You continue to repeat this unsupported assertion.
The God hypothesis explains the origin of complexity where no other theory comes close to explaining it. Complexity starts with the origin of the hydrogen atom, a component essential for life.
dazz said:
We’ll just have to be in disagreement about that, then.
The one that has no assumptions. 🙂
No, it’s the exact opposite of that. It’s constructed on their utter contingency.
Really? So if it’s not necessarily true that the laws and constants must work the way they do to describe nature, then it’s not true that we need a universe with this particular set of laws and constants to produce life. IOW, nature could potentially be any other way, and still life permitting
How do you know the total range of possible configurations of all possible universes, those that can support life represent a tiny fraction?
Simple logic. There are exponentially more ways for a specified result to fail than for for it to succeed.
Perhaps all the rest of the possible universes under any other laws are life permitting, each of them being a specific type of universe with it’s specific type of life. Your logic is not very sound there
I agree, now what is the logic that intelligent life is the pre-specified goal of the structure of the universe?
Wouldn’t those laws likely been contingent on the initial conditions of the universe?
Would fine tuning be more or less likely or the same if the universe had 4,000 components?
No.
ETA: But even if they are, they would still be contingent, and dazz would still be wrong.