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.
If so and cause and effect are unlinked what the necessity a designer ?
If not the initial condition then what?
In case it’s not clear, I’m not saying the values of the constants are necessary
Then how would you answer this?
newton,
If there are more ways to fail then succeed then planning where you are going is a good thing and probably required to get there 🙂
Do you think those other universes were able to support life?
Please specify what you mean by “more ways to fail than (sic) succeed”. Was there only one possible configuration of the Universe that was available for God that could support life? Or were there many that was able to choose from?
But how finely balanced can the systems of the Universe be if God is able to, at will, make changes without the system crashing? I mentioned Joshua commanding the Sun to stand still for a day earlier in this thread. How did God suddenly stop the rotation of the Earth without the inherent impact to the inertia of everything on and in the Earth that would be entailed by that?
RoyLT,
This was Williams comment but I think he means the odds of success are low.
My guess is that once the atom, as we know it, was designed to be the basic component of the universe then the parameters of choice were limited and may have just been part of the design of the basic component. The strong, weak force and electro magnetism almost certainly are design parameters of the atom.
The jury is still out on gravity 🙂
RoyLT,
One possibility is simulation theory where we are in a simulation of addressable atoms vs a simulation of addressable pixels that represents human simulation. The designer is free to alter the simulation if he choses.
Maybe so, so what makes you think intelligent life is where the universe wanted to go except for your anthropomorphic viewpoint?
newton,
If we agree for argument sake that the atom was at the center of the design of the universe.
Intelligent life is the most sophisticated use of atoms known in the universe as the conscious brain is made of them. The end point was most likely understood before the design of the component or how would they assemble so seamlessly into a brain?
But if the designer is free to alter the simulation at will, then what purpose does the fine-tuning of the physical constants serve? If God has a ‘safe-mode’ that he can run the Universe in and make any changes he wants without crashing the system, there is no reason that we should expect any consistency in the parameters of the Universe around us.
For the record, I personally think that this sort of designer is much more compatible with the God of the Christian Bible.
Do you believe that, upon death, your spirit will go to Heaven? If so, do you believe that you will retain your corporeal matter or simply be a spiritual being?
RoyLT,
So the simulation can run on its own as it usually does.
RoyLT,
Good question 🙂 This is above my kindergarten Theology level.
I would think energy was at the center but ok the atom.
Yes ithe pattern of the arrangement of the atoms is “sophisticated “..
Yes a designer might know brains could be a result of a particular design, what is the basis of the assumption that brains necessarily were the goal of the design if the design paradigm is true?
Sorry for the late reply.
I think they transcend the notion of originate, they simply are there — eternal truths.
We approximate these laws with our descriptions of these laws. Those description originate with the human mind, but we are describing abstract relations between axioms that simply and eternally pre-existed our description of them.
Practicing mathematicians implicitly assume there is a right answer to be discovered, they don’t invent the right answer about mathematical relations.
Then why do so many scientists believe there should be intelligent life on other planets?
Not sure they think there should be but rather could be. But at the present we know of only one place that has life and of that life a small percent would qualify as intelligent. One then has to extrapolate from that one data point that the target of the structure of the Universe is intelligent life.
So phoodoo what is the logic for you that human intelligence is the target of the structure of the Universe?
I have never said that it is. But I certainly don’t think intelligence is accidental.
Sounds reasonable. I asked for your opinion because per Bill and William fine tuning argument is supported because there are fewer ways of hitting a target ,human intelligence is this case , than missing it.
So that made me curious what the logic is that human intelligence is the target of the structure of the Universe.
newton,
In designing components you target your most challenging application. The most challenging application of the atom is the human brain.
In designing components are there other targets as important?
I’m not a Christian, so your particular example isn’t my problem to solve. Extremely unlikely events can be seen as miraculous, especially considering the models provided via quantum physics.
It provides a certain kind of world that provides certain kinds of experiences for those that enter it.
I think God created other universes, with other constants, that support life, if that answers your question.
That depends on your initial assumptions, but I’d say that given the probability ratio of paths to success compared to paths to failure, creating an environment for some other reason that also just happens to be able to support intelligent life, and then intelligent life occurring in that environment on its own, is an enormous long-shot. Not impossible, but not a reasonable possibility.
All we have to intelligently reason from is (1) what life we see here, and what it is like, and (2) what we can glean would be the result if some of the universal constants/forces were different. If you want to simply wish up unknown kinds of life that can exist in universes that only exist for a split second or expand too fast to form any complex molecules, have at it.
That’s not Roy’s fault. The fine-tuning argument is the one that has the cart before the horse.
I’d start discussing the problems with the fine-tuning bullshit right there, but Roy decided to go for the Kettle logic.
Once again, you have made assumptions about my position and then argued against them.
‘any observers who might emerge’ does not mean a Universe exactly like ours in every way. It simply means a Universe where observers emerge.
So are you arguing for Fine-Tuning statistically or philosophically?
I’d like to fine tune my piano…what are the probabilities of that if I put it out on my deck and expose to the forces of nature, dumb luck and all…that my piano is going to sound better than it does now?
Do we have any mathematicians here? Tom?
How would one compute the number of times intelligent life has failed to appear? If one accepts the only known existence of intelligent life is on Earth and the estimate of 13 billion years of the universe has existed and the estimate that modern humans have existed for two hundred thousand years should we count 12.9998 billlion years of no known intelligent life as failed attempts?
I have a question, if intelligent life was observed to be plentiful throughout our galaxy would that be more or less support for the hypothesis that the target of the universe is intelligent life as compared to the likelihood of the hypothesis in the case of life being undetected except for Earth ? In other words, would either the abundance of intelligent life or the rarity of intelligent life support equally the conjecture that intelligent life is the target for the structure of Universe?
So you are saying even if the universe is designed as fine tuned instrument eventually it will become not fine tuned?
Only if you keep it outdoors.
Glen Davidson
That doesn’t answer my question. My questions is specifically regarding events in which God (for whatever reason) violates the regular predictable functioning of the Universe to bring about his ends… i.e. Miracles. Not quantum entanglement or dark matter, miracles.
Are you fucking serious?
Christian Apologists, who clearly believe in the Immaculate Conception, Resurrection, Ascension, etc. believe that the Fine-Tuning Argument proves the existence of their God. I have attempted, from the OP on, to make clear that I find that notion inconsistent from the standpoint of mainstream Christian beliefs.
If you personal beliefs (or lack thereof) do not suffer from the same inconsistencies, then good for you.
🙂
RoyLT said:
Miracles are descriptions of events that are not covered by other descriptions (i.e., known force constants, known regularities, etc). Nothing has been “violated” in any meaningful sense of the word, other than our sense of the common regularity of things.
Your “argument” fails regardless of virtually any meaningful theological position due to (1) your straw-man, childish characterization of God, (2) your mischaracterization of the fine-tuning argument, and (3) your lack of understanding about what so-called physical laws and constants are.
But, that’s usually the problem with anti-theists; they are usually arguing against a cartoon concept of God and other philosophical concepts that only exists in that form their head, for the purpose of providing constant reassurance that they have the superior position and argument.
What I’m saying is that the universe must have started off with an extremely low entropy; as closely to zero as possibly, and a size of a tennis ball…
14.7 billion years later, if the estimate if the age of the universe is correct, the acceleration of its expansion is so fine tuned, that it is beyond anything that human intelligence can match… not even close…They are off by 10 ^97 in comparison to the cosmological constant 10 ^120 – fine-tuning a telescope..
My piano example is just a simple depiction of the fact that if there is fine tuning, there has to be a fine tuner… and in case of the fine tuned universe not just any fine tuner…
That doesn’t even make sense. We were counting universes as attempts. I don’t see how one can then go to counting years of a universe as individual attempts at intelligent life.
I’d say it would be a stronger argument if there is an abundance of intelligent life in this universe.
There cannot be anything but cartoons of “God” because it’s a fantasy. No amount of theologian training can change that. So, if you don’t like the version played by Christian apologists, then present your own. It will still be a cartoon though.
The argument presented is exactly what I’ve seen idiots like WL Craig presenting. If you think it’s a straw man, what about explaining what the crap is “really” about, instead of just claiming that it’s a mischaracterization?
The very basis for fine-tuning is exactly the misunderstanding that you pointed out. Once that’s clear, the argument falls apart on its own.
Nah. Roy was just pointing to the Kettle logic he found in the argument as described by some famous Christian apologist. Again, if you don’t like it, then present your own. Maybe start with an OP with the “real” “God” and the “real” fine-tuning argument. We can then check it for its “superiority.”
So far you have nothing but claims founded on nothing but more claims. No explanations, no clarifications, nothing. That might reassure you that you have the superior position, but it doesn’t look too much as if you do.
In the closed system anything is possible… Or is it in the open system? Can’t remember… whatever suits the materialistic speculative theories to fill the needs…
If I were you, I would take your complaint up with the piano-designer. Perhaps if he had designed a better piano, it would not need to be re-tuned periodically.
Entropy said:
No argument or evidence can penetrate a closed mind. At least you can admit yo have one, which is better than most here.
Already have.
That you think the basis for the fine-tuning argument is that the laws and constants are prescriptive – some kind of hardwired system – demonstrates your lack of comprehension into the nature of the argument and why such “challenges” always begin with bad premises and pursue straw-man arguments.
Please explain how events that violate “our sense of the common regularity of things” do not contradict the fact that the Universe is Fine-Tuned.
No. By definition, they are events which violate the laws of nature.
So where is the line drawn between non-prescriptive laws and constants which prove God’s existence and those that represent a magical world that makes no sense?
Let’s look at this from another perspective that might be more revealing. Let’s posit a universe that is totally inhospitable to human life, where the cosmic radiation would immediately kill all life and the expansion rate was so fast there are no complex molecules or clumps of matter upon which a human could exist.
You might ask, can god just manifest a fully-formed human being there? Certainly. Every time our human, we’ll call him Roy, takes a breath, God manifests oxygen to fill his lungs. The radiation is redirected a few inches from his skin. When he is hungry, food appears in his hand. If he throws the food away from him, it is immediately destroyed by the radiation and expansion forces.
Can God do this? Certainly. It doesn’t violate any of the innate characteristics of God per se.
Now let’s say Roy is inquisitive about the nature of the universe he finds himself in. Scientific equipment just appears as he needs it to study and record and run experiments.
Would Roy find that he lives in a universe that is finely tuned for intelligent life? No, he would not. Instead, he would find a universe that is, in every way that can be scientifically modeled, entirely inhospitable to human life, and he would find that his own existence, and the appearance of oxygen, water, food and scientific equipment to be miraculous aberrations of the patterns that exist everywhere else except in his own miraculous being. He would have no way of explaining how he exists, continues to live or where his food and supplies come from.
From this example we can see that the regular patterns and behaviors of the universe – the “tuning” – exists despite any miraculous, inexplicable anomalies that may occur for Roy’s benefit.
Miraculous anomalies are irrelevant to the fact that our universe is indeed fine-tuned for the existence of life. The fact that god could make humans exist in any universal environment or set of conditions is irrelevant to the fact that this particular universe is finely-tuned for intelligent life.
The fine-tuning is not a mechanical pre-requisite for god to manifest life, but a universe with such fine-tuning serves a certain ranges of purposes and opportunities for those that find themselves in one.
That’s a bad definition, then, since there are no prescriptive “laws of nature” to “violate”. There are only things that occur that do not fit into current models.
There is a huge, qualitative difference between something being a prescriptive “law” and a something being a “description of regular patterns of behavior”.
Roy, read for comprehension. Just because I list some things that God can do doesn’t mean God can do anything. God can’t make round squares nor can god make evil good, and God can’t make 1+1=3 in any universe.
Most theologians will say that God made this universe the way he did for a purpose. It is that purpose that logically and morally limits what god can and cannot do **in this universe**. It doesn’t mean God cannot perform the miraculous here, but he must do so in a manner that is suited to the purpose this universe serves.
In other universes that serve other purposes, God doesn’t have the same limitations as he would have in this universe, although god would still be limited to its own characteristics and what can be rationally drawn from those characteristics give a particular purpose in creating a thing.
Which sounds a lot like our early Universe.
Then suggest a better one. But you might want to check with the Christians first before you define the Resurrection and Ascension as non-miraculous events.