The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

[he_who_is_nobody]

[
It is amazing how you will whine instead of meeting your burden of proof. However, my comment above is in reference to you asserting that "most possible universes would not even have matter, (let alone stars, planets, molecules etc.)". Since we have exactly a sample size of One Universe, it would be surprising if you could support what you said here with any actual evidence.

Furthermore, I abide by the motto I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Thus, if you met your burden of proof, I would have to accept what you say.

I am willing to accept the burden, just to be clear my view is that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, I am not arguing that it Is the only possible explanation.

rejecting my view implies that you have a better explanation.

No it does not. I am fine saying I do not know. You are making the claim to knowledge, thus you have to support that claim. Stop trying to shift your burden and just present your evidence already.

So to be clear. I was able to identify 3 objections,

1 The universe could have not have life prohibiting variables .....the force of gravity could have not been any different, the low entropy of the universe was necessary and inevitable etc............for example if I throw a dice and get a 6 I could have gotten any other number form 1 to 5 .........you view is that the universe is not analogous to the dice......is this your view?.

To state it clearly, no one has shown that the variables that go into the universe as we know it can be different. As a thought experiment, those variables can be changed, but no one has presented anything to demonstrate that the actual variables that everyone talks about can be different. We have a sample size of one, thus I am not sure how anyone could show this.

2 Life could have adapted in a wide variety of possible universes....life permitting universes are relatively highly probable ....if we take evolution in to account.

No. I am not making any predictions on possible universes. All I am saying is that the only life that we see is very robust, but does not have to exist the way we see it today. One thought experiment about this is if the mass extinction did not happen 66 million years ago, than life on this planet would be vastly different today, but there would still be life. Beyond that, reaching intelligence/sentience does not seem to be something that needs to happen with life. Thus, there is no guaranty that this other possible world would have intelligence/sentience.

3 The universe was clearly not finely tuned to host as much life as possible

Correct. I see no way around this one. Since fine-tuning is laid out as an argument for why we exist, it appears that the universe as we know it is vastly un-tuned for life. In fact, life exists in spite of it.

I pointed this out in the blog post, and you ignored it, but it appears to me that the only way to argue for this is to placing limitations on your intelligent designer's intelligence or power. Most western theists are very unwilling to do this, hence why you ignored it, yet seemed to agree with it.

I my representing your view correctly.?

I corrected where you were wrong.

apart from those objections do you have any other objection?

I think we are fine for now.

and finally, do you understand the argument? can I make a reply based on the assumption that you understand the argument? or should I explain the argument before?

I made a whole blog post pointing out the flaws of the argument. If you think I do not understand it, than feel free to explain it.

 

[leroy]

[

No it does not. I am fine saying I do not know. You are making the claim to knowledge, thus you have to support that claim. Stop trying to shift your burden and just present your evidence already.

why do you have so many problems in accepting your burden?

in normal discussions both sides are suppose to present and defend a view

Besides with your I don´t know answer, you are tacitly admitting that a designer is as good as any other naturalistic explanation. ...if you what to argue that there are better naturalistic explanation than a designer that would be a claim of knowledge and you would have to carry a burden.

To state it clearly, no one has shown that the variables that go into the universe as we know it can be different. As a thought experiment, those variables can be changed, but no one has presented anything to demonstrate that the actual variables that everyone talks about can be different. We have a sample size of one, thus I am not sure how anyone could show this.

when I argue that the variables could have been different I mean it in the logical sense, for example gravity is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times weaker than electromagnetism, but any other number would have also been logically coherent.

.


to retake the dice analogy, maybe if I throw a dice I might get 6, but any other number from 1 to 5 would have also been logically possible......

to disagree with this statements, implies that you are suggesting that it is logically incoherent to have a universe where gravity is 1% stronger, which bares a heave burden that you wont even attempt to carry.

This is not a crazy theistic, or creationists thing, most secular scientists would also agree with this particular statement, this is why the multiverse theory is proposed as an explanation for fine tuning.

if you what to hold on to your claim and argue that the universe could have not been different, and even assuming that somehow you prove it..... you would still have a similar problem,........namely why did the force of nature conspired and created a life permitting universe, rather than a life forbidding universe?........why do the forces of nature have the necessity of creating a life permitting universe?

No. I am not making any predictions on possible universes. All I am saying is that the only life that we see is very robust, but does not have to exist the way we see it today. One thought experiment about this is if the mass extinction did not happen 66 million years ago, than life on this planet would be vastly different today, but there would still be life. Beyond that, reaching intelligence/sentience does not seem to be something that needs to happen with life. Thus, there is no guaranty that this other possible world would have intelligence/sentience.

but most possible universes would not even have matter, for example if gravity would have been a little bit stronger, the whole universes would have collapsed in a black whole a few seconds after the Big Bang..............

so forget about dinosaurs, trilobites green men or androids, no life can exist in a universe where a black whole is all there is.

source
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/nov/cover/

If gravity were too strong, the universe would have collapsed long before life could have evolved. Had it been too weak, no galaxies or stars could have formed

.

Correct. I see no way around this one. Since fine-tuning is laid out as an argument for why we exist, it appears that the universe as we know it is vastly un-tuned for life. In fact, life exists in spite of it.

I pointed this out in the blog post, and you ignored it, but it appears to me that the only way to argue for this is to placing limitations on your intelligent designer's intelligence or power. Most western theists are very unwilling to do this, hence why you ignored it, yet seemed to agree with it.

I can grant that point without problem, but your point is irrelevant, since no one ii arguing that the universe is finely tuned to optimice that amount of living things that can be hosted in the universe. In the same way pyramids are not tuned to host as many dead bodies as possible and my bead room is not tuning to host as many people as possible.

sure Egyptians could have created simpler and more efficient tombs rather than this complex pyramids and any architect could have created my bedroom with more beds and allow for more people to sleep there instead of just me and my wife.........but I am sure that you grant that Egyptian and architects had good reasons to create these seemingly inefficient designs and it has nothing to do with limited knowledge or limited resources. ........


So why did God created a universe so big and full of all this seemingly unnecessary stuff?

The short answer is I don't know, but that is a secondary question, but I can think on 4 possibilities, and none of them would imply a limited designer.

maybe there are other creatures in the universe that need all this stuff that seems useless for us

maybe we will use all this stuff in the future

maybe God is just like an artist and created this stuff because they look nice, (artist create useless stuff all the time, simply because they look nice so why cant the universe be Gods artwork?)

or maybe God is just making fun of atheist, since a big universe is even more likely than a small universe.....maybe God simply decided to create a big universe to make atheism even more ridicule.....this is not meant to be provocative, a small universe with just 1 planet and 1 star would be less hard to explain naturally than a big universe like ours

none of this alternatives imply a limited God,

Again, you are arguing that the universe as we know it was fined tuned for life, yet the vast majority of it is hostel to life as we know it. Think about that for a second and tell me it makes any sense?

yes and the vas majority of the volume of the grate pyramids is hostile for burring dead bodies, only a small portion of the pyramids can be used to burry dead people.....but yet no one would argue that therefore the pyramids where not created by intelligent designers.

And as a side note, even if you somehow prove that only a limited designer could have created this universe, that would only invalidate my own personal interpretation of God, but the design argument would still be valid (even if the designer is not my God)

in other words disproving my own personal interpretation of God, does nothing to refute the argument from design..

.

Thus, your deity could do anything it wanted, thus explaining everything that we see no matter what.

This sounds like God does not meet my own personal expectations, therefore God most not exist...God does not own you any explanation,

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No it does not. I am fine saying I do not know. You are making the claim to knowledge, thus you have to support that claim. Stop trying to shift your burden and just present your evidence already.

why do you have so many problems in accepting your burden?

in normal discussions both sides are suppose to present and defend a view

It is simple, I do not have a burden because I am not claiming anything. I am skeptical of your position. I do not have to mount anything to point out the flaws in your argument.

Besides with your I don´t know answer, you are tacitly admitting that a designer is as good as any other naturalistic explanation. ...if you what to argue that there are better naturalistic explanation than a designer that would be a claim of knowledge and you would have to carry a burden.

Exactly! I am not claiming anything, and I am granting that whatever you are claiming is equal to any other position one could put forward. Now that we are finally on the same page, are you going to start presenting any evidence or evidence?

To state it clearly, no one has shown that the variables that go into the universe as we know it can be different. As a thought experiment, those variables can be changed, but no one has presented anything to demonstrate that the actual variables that everyone talks about can be different. We have a sample size of one, thus I am not sure how anyone could show this.

when I argue that the variables could have been different I mean it in the logical sense, for example gravity is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times weaker than electromagnetism, but any other number would have also been logically coherent.

.


to retake the dice analogy, maybe if I throw a dice I might get 6, but any other number from 1 to 5 would have also been logically possible......

to disagree with this statements, implies that you are suggesting that it is logically incoherent to have a universe where gravity is 1% stronger, which bares a heave burden that you wont even attempt to carry.

This is not a crazy theistic, or creationists thing, most secular scientists would also agree with this particular statement, this is why the multiverse theory is proposed as an explanation for fine tuning.

Again, I already granted that one can theoretically (or what you would call logical sense) play with the variables that make up the universe as we know it. Now, the question is how do we actually know that they can be different? Again, we have a sample size of one. How can anyone know that any of the proposed different states of a universe could exist? What are they using to get from this theoretical state to actual reality?

Beyond that, since we have a universe sample of just one (i.e. 1:1 ratio) and you have presented nothing to show how there could be any other type of universe, it appears my burden is already met. Oh, and it would be nice to see a citation for your claim that the multiverse is proposed to explain fine-tuning.

if you what to hold on to your claim and argue that the universe could have not been different, and even assuming that somehow you prove it..... you would still have a similar problem,........namely why did the force of nature conspired and created a life permitting universe, rather than a life forbidding universe?........why do the forces of nature have the necessity of creating a life permitting universe?

First off, I am not saying that the universe as we know it could not be different. I am simply pointing out the fact that we have a sample size of one universe. Thus, any speculations about different universes is only speculation.

Second, I also do not know why the universe as we know it allows for life. However, life is very robust once it starts and seems to persist in spite of the universe. Thus, again even stating "a life permitting universe" seems to be begging the question, since as far as we know life makes up less than one percent of the universe.

No. I am not making any predictions on possible universes. All I am saying is that the only life that we see is very robust, but does not have to exist the way we see it today. One thought experiment about this is if the mass extinction did not happen 66 million years ago, than life on this planet would be vastly different today, but there would still be life. Beyond that, reaching intelligence/sentience does not seem to be something that needs to happen with life. Thus, there is no guaranty that this other possible world would have intelligence/sentience.

but most possible universes would not even have matter, for example if gravity would have been a little bit stronger, the whole universes would have collapsed in a black whole a few seconds after the Big Bang..............

so forget about dinosaurs, trilobites green men or androids, no life can exist in a universe where a black whole is all there is.

source
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/nov/cover/

If gravity were too strong, the universe would have collapsed long before life could have evolved. Had it been too weak, no galaxies or stars could have formed

Once again, you are talking about other universes when this objection deals with the universe as we know it now. First off, you still have not shown that there is such a thing as other possible universes and I cannot wait to see you demonstrate that their are. Second, this objection deals with the fact that life is robust and can fit into numerous environments. That is to say, people that use the Fine-Tuning Argument appear to be looking at a puddle of water and being amazed that the land around the puddle conforms to the water so perfectly. They do not realize that the water can take almost any shape.

Correct. I see no way around this one. Since fine-tuning is laid out as an argument for why we exist, it appears that the universe as we know it is vastly un-tuned for life. In fact, life exists in spite of it.

I pointed this out in the blog post, and you ignored it, but it appears to me that the only way to argue for this is to placing limitations on your intelligent designer's intelligence or power. Most western theists are very unwilling to do this, hence why you ignored it, yet seemed to agree with it.

I can grant that point without problem, but your point is irrelevant, since no one ii arguing that the universe is finely tuned to optimice that amount of living things that can be hosted in the universe. In the same way pyramids are not tuned to host as many dead bodies as possible and my bead room is not tuning to host as many people as possible.

sure Egyptians could have created simpler and more efficient tombs rather than this complex pyramids and any architect could have created my bedroom with more beds and allow for more people to sleep there instead of just me and my wife.........but I am sure that you grant that Egyptian and architects had good reasons to create these seemingly inefficient designs and it has nothing to do with limited knowledge or limited resources. ........

I love this. You are trying to argue that something is finely-tuned by pointing to objects that we know are not finely-tuned. Amazing how you are able to defeat your own argument so easily. Just to be clear, we know the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, not because of any fine-tuning in them, but because we have physical evidence of this. I would assume we would have the same for your house. Which reminds me, when are you going to present any evidence of fine-tuning? I ask this because if you are willing to admit that the universe as we know it is not maximally fine-tuned for life, than what is allowing you to conclude that it is fine-tuned for life at all?

So why did God created a universe so big and full of all this seemingly unnecessary stuff?

The short answer is I don't know, but that is a secondary question, but I can think on 4 possibilities, and none of them would imply a limited designer.

maybe there are other creatures in the universe that need all this stuff that seems useless for us

maybe we will use all this stuff in the future

maybe God is just like an artist and created this stuff because they look nice, (artist create useless stuff all the time, simply because they look nice so why cant the universe be Gods artwork?)

or maybe God is just making fun of atheist, since a big universe is even more likely than a small universe.....maybe God simply decided to create a big universe to make atheism even more ridicule.....this is not meant to be provocative, a small universe with just 1 planet and 1 star would be less hard to explain naturally than a big universe like ours

none of this alternatives imply a limited God,

I said this before, and it appears you do not understand it, but a hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing. That is to say, you are proposing an un-falsifiable and un-testable hypothesis. That makes your deity useless as an explanatory agent.

Again, you are arguing that the universe as we know it was fined tuned for life, yet the vast majority of it is hostel to life as we know it. Think about that for a second and tell me it makes any sense?

yes and the vas majority of the volume of the grate pyramids is hostile for burring dead bodies, only a small portion of the pyramids can be used to burry dead people.....but yet no one would argue that therefore the pyramids where not created by intelligent designers.

Again, we know they were created by ancient Egyptians because of evidence, not because of any fine-tuning. However, thank you for once again defeating your own argument. I will be waiting here for you to present any evidence of this fine-tuning though. Whenever you are ready.

And as a side note, even if you somehow prove that only a limited designer could have created this universe, that would only invalidate my own personal interpretation of God, but the design argument would still be valid (even if the designer is not my God)

in other words disproving my own personal interpretation of God, does nothing to refute the argument from design..

You have not shown there to be design in the first place. How can you proclaim that "design argument" is still valid when you have not shown design? Once again, I will be happy to look at your evidence, just as soon as you present it.

Oh, and since your deity appears to be able to do whatever it wants, it is un-falsifiable, thus un-usable as an explanatory agent. Again, you defeated your own argument.

Thus, your deity could do anything it wanted, thus explaining everything that we see no matter what.

This sounds like God does not meet my own personal expectations, therefore God most not exist...God does not own you any explanation,

Is that how that sounded in your head? That explains a lot. Well, you left off the last sentence of that paragraph which does change its meaning a bit. However, I was simply pointing out how you have proclaimed your deity to be un-falsifiable. I explained above what that means, so you should not be confused this time.

 

[ldmitruk]

Here's a video by Sean Carrol on the failure of the fine tuning argument. Unfortunately the quality is not very good. However He does a good job of explaining the failures in under ten minutes.

 

[tuxbox]

Here's a video by Sean Carrol on the failure of the fine tuning argument. Unfortunately the quality is not very good. However He does a good job of explaining the failures in under ten minutes.

I watched the entire debate and WLC really did suck at making his point that there is a Creator.

 

[leroy]

[

I watched the entire debate and WLC really did suck at making his point that there is a Creator.

I would say that both made a good job in the debate....


the debate was free of personal attacks, and both made an honest effort to understand and reply to their opponents.

 

[leroy]

It would be good idea if I start by defining 2 terms

1 Fine tuning when it is said that the universe is finely tuned for the existence of life, it is meant that the existence of life depends upon a delicate balance of multiple independent constants and inicial conditions. For example if gravity would have been 0.000001% stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole a no life would be possible.

In this sense, most scientists would accept that the universe is finely tuned, it is really an uncontroversial claim, and as far as I understand you also accept this point.

Life permitting universe> It is assumed that any type of life (let alone intelligent complex life) require a bunch of minimal requirements in order to exist, (matter, molecules, planets, stars, low entropy, chemistry etc.) so a life permitting universe would be a universe that has these requirements, even if the universe doesn't actually have living things in it.

Life permitting universe require fine tuning, in other words, any life permitting universe would have to have a delicate balance of forces and initial conditions in order to have matter, molecules, planets, stars, low entropy, chemistry etc,

when theist say that the universe is finely tuned for life, they really mean that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of stuff that life requires to exist.

[




Again, I already granted that one can theoretically (or what you would call logical sense) play with the variables that make up the universe as we know it. Now, the question is how do we actually know that they can be different? Again, we have a sample size of one. How can anyone know that any of the proposed different states of a universe could exist? What are they using to get from this theoretical state to actual reality?[

well as long as you agree that it is logically possible to have a live prohibiting universe, you are granting that portion of the argument.

Beyond that, since we have a universe sample of just one (i.e. 1:1 ratio) and you have presented nothing to show how there could be any other type of universe, it appears my burden is already met. Oh, and it would be nice to see a citation for your claim that the multiverse is proposed to explain fine-tuning.

all I have to do is show that other universes are logically possible, for example it is logically possible not to have stars,

Oh, and it would be nice to see a citation for your claim that the multiverse is proposed to explain fine-tuning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Multiverse

Second, I also do not know why the universe as we know it allows for life. However, life is very robust once it starts and seems to persist in spite of the universe. Thus, again even stating "a life permitting universe" seems to be begging the question, since as far as we know life makes up less than one percent of the universe.

the only assumption that is being made is that life would have no existed in a universe without matter, (or without stars, or without chemistry etc.)

it seems to be a fare assumption, but feel free to prove it wrong.

. That is to say, people that use the Fine-Tuning Argument appear to be looking at a puddle of water and being amazed that the land around the puddle conforms to the water so perfectly. They do not realize that the water can take almost any shape.

, if you think that is that case, feel free to prove it, if you what to argue that Life can fit in to any environment (even one without matter) please provide your evidence.

I love this. You are trying to argue that something is finely-tuned by pointing to objects that we know are not finely-tuned. Amazing how you are able to defeat your own argument so easily. Just to be clear, we know the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, not because of any fine-tuning in them, but because we have physical evidence of this. I would assume we would have the same for your house. Which reminds me, when are you going to present any evidence of fine-tuning? I ask this because if you are willing to admit that the universe as we know it is not maximally fine-tuned for life, than what is allowing you to conclude that it is fine-tuned for life at all?

Please make an honest effort and try to grasp and understand the point......

the only point that I was making is that the design hypothesis is not injured by the fact that the object in question (universe, or pyramids) is more complex than what it needs to be in order to achieve its goal. ........do you grant this specific point?

the fact that the universe is seemingly bigger and more complex than what it needs to be in order to host life does not affect the design hypothesis. .....if anything it makes the design hypothesis even stronger, because such a complex and large universe is harder to explain by naturalistic mechanism, than it would be to explain a simple and small universe.

I said this before, and it appears you do not understand it, but a hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing. That is to say, you are proposing an un-falsifiable and un-testable hypothesis. That makes your deity useless as an explanatory agent.

Not the case, even I grant that the concept of God is unfalsifiable, the fine tuning argument is still falsifiable.

1 for example you can show that a life prohibiting universe is logically impossible

2 you can show that life permitting universe are not so improbable

3 or you can simply provide a better explanation that a designer for the fine tuning of the universe



so the argument is falsifiable,

You have not shown there to be design in the first place. How can you proclaim that "design argument" is still valid when you have not shown design? Once again, I will be happy to look at your evidence, just as soon as you present it.

Evidence for fine-tuning has been presented and as far as I could understand you don't disagree with the idea that the universe si finely tuned....

so the only remaining question is

what is the better explanation for the fine tuning of the universe?

apart from a designer do you have any other suggestion?.........


///////


we know that intelligent designers can create finely tuned patters, and we know that the existence of a designer of the universe is at least posible (by your own admition)

so until you provide a better explanation we most accept design as the best hypothesis,

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It would be good idea if I start by defining 2 terms

1 Fine tuning when it is said that the universe is finely tuned for the existence of life, it is meant that the existence of life depends upon a delicate balance of multiple independent constants and inicial conditions. For example if gravity would have been 0.000001% stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole a no life would be possible.

This is such a terrible and self-serving definition. This means that a universe (such as our) that supports less than 1% life would be considered fine-tuned. That is asinine. I reject this defintion of fine-tuning outright, since most fantasy universes, including the one the Bible proposes, are far more tuned for life than what we see. As I said in my blog:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"] Basically, whenever a theist tries to use the Fine-Tuning Argument, they are essentially saying; “Look at this earth size planet. It has one microorganism on it. Thus, the planet must be finely-tuned for the microorganism.” Any engineer would look at that system and conclude that it was poorly tuned if its purpose was for sustaining that microorganism. If this universe was fine-tuned for anything, it was fine-tuned for creating black holes and not life.

Again, how are you concluding fine-tuning from something that is obviously not tuned?

In this sense, most scientists would accept that the universe is finely tuned, it is really an uncontroversial claim, and as far as I understand you also accept this point.

You are pointing to the beginning conditions and claiming them to be finely-tuned without demonstrating that they are. That is what is controversial about this. We both agree on the conditions, you are claiming they are fine-tuned, that is what you need to demonstrate.

Life permitting universe> It is assumed that any type of life (let alone intelligent complex life) require a bunch of minimal requirements in order to exist, (matter, molecules, planets, stars, low entropy, chemistry etc.) so a life permitting universe would be a universe that has these requirements, even if the universe doesn't actually have living things in it.

This definition seems far better than fine-tuned. It does not beg the question like fine-tuning does. I accept this definition.

Life permitting universe require fine tuning, in other words, any life permitting universe would have to have a delicate balance of forces and initial conditions in order to have matter, molecules, planets, stars, low entropy, chemistry etc,

Okay. That is your claim. Now you have to demonstrate it.

when theist say that the universe is finely tuned for life, they really mean that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of stuff that life requires to exist.

By putting limitations onto their deity. Got it.

Again, I already granted that one can theoretically (or what you would call logical sense) play with the variables that make up the universe as we know it. Now, the question is how do we actually know that they can be different? Again, we have a sample size of one. How can anyone know that any of the proposed different states of a universe could exist? What are they using to get from this theoretical state to actual reality?

well as long as you agree that it is logically possible to have a live prohibiting universe, you are granting that portion of the argument.

:lol:

After all this, you only have a counterfactual conditional to offer up as your argument? Pathetic.

Beyond that, since we have a universe sample of just one (i.e. 1:1 ratio) and you have presented nothing to show how there could be any other type of universe, it appears my burden is already met. Oh, and it would be nice to see a citation for your claim that the multiverse is proposed to explain fine-tuning.

all I have to do is show that other universes are logically possible, for example it is logically possible not to have stars,

Thus, all you are offering is a counterfactual conditional. I guess we are done here.

Oh, and it would be nice to see a citation for your claim that the multiverse is proposed to explain fine-tuning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tune ... Multiverse

Fair enough.

Second, I also do not know why the universe as we know it allows for life. However, life is very robust once it starts and seems to persist in spite of the universe. Thus, again even stating "a life permitting universe" seems to be begging the question, since as far as we know life makes up less than one percent of the universe.

the only assumption that is being made is that life would have no existed in a universe without matter, (or without stars, or without chemistry etc.)

it seems to be a fare assumption, but feel free to prove it wrong.

Correct. Now can you demonstrate these other universes are possible or are you just going to rely on a counterfactual conditional for your whole argument?

. That is to say, people that use the Fine-Tuning Argument appear to be looking at a puddle of water and being amazed that the land around the puddle conforms to the water so perfectly. They do not realize that the water can take almost any shape.

, if you think that is that case, feel free to prove it, if you what to argue that Life can fit in to any environment (even one without matter) please provide your evidence.

:facepalm:

Once again, you are talking about other universes when this objection deals with the universe as we know it now. First off, you still have not shown that there is such a thing as other possible universes and I cannot wait to see you demonstrate that their are. Second, this objection deals with the fact that life is robust and can fit into numerous environments. That is to say, people that use the Fine-Tuning Argument appear to be looking at a puddle of water and being amazed that the land around the puddle conforms to the water so perfectly. They do not realize that the water can take almost any shape.

[Emphasis added]

What do we have here, a quote-mine to go along with your other logical fallacy. As anyone can plainly see, I am talking about the universe as we know it now and not any other possible universes. Honestly, if you do not have any objections to this part of my argument, than stop bringing it up.

I love this. You are trying to argue that something is finely-tuned by pointing to objects that we know are not finely-tuned. Amazing how you are able to defeat your own argument so easily. Just to be clear, we know the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, not because of any fine-tuning in them, but because we have physical evidence of this. I would assume we would have the same for your house. Which reminds me, when are you going to present any evidence of fine-tuning? I ask this because if you are willing to admit that the universe as we know it is not maximally fine-tuned for life, than what is allowing you to conclude that it is fine-tuned for life at all?

Please make an honest effort and try to grasp and understand the point......

the only point that I was making is that the design hypothesis is not injured by the fact that the object in question (universe, or pyramids) is more complex than what it needs to be in order to achieve its goal. ........do you grant this specific point?

The only reason we are able to infer design when it comes to artifacts is because of physical evidence of its manufacturing. Thus, I can grant this point the moment you start presenting any evidence that the universe is designed. Until than, you are holding an empty bag.

the fact that the universe is seemingly bigger and more complex than what it needs to be in order to host life does not affect the design hypothesis. .....if anything it makes the design hypothesis even stronger, because such a complex and large universe is harder to explain by naturalistic mechanism, than it would be to explain a simple and small universe.

You still have not shown the universe to be designed, thus I am still wondering how you are inferring design in the first place.

I said this before, and it appears you do not understand it, but a hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing. That is to say, you are proposing an un-falsifiable and un-testable hypothesis. That makes your deity useless as an explanatory agent.

Not the case, even I grant that the concept of God is unfalsifiable, the fine tuning argument is still falsifiable.

1 for example you can show that a life prohibiting universe is logically impossible

2 you can show that life permitting universe are not so improbable

3 or you can simply provide a better explanation that a designer for the fine tuning of the universe



so the argument is falsifiable,

:facepalm:

You still have not shown any reason to think that design should be put forth as an explanation in the first place. Stop trying to shift the burden.

You have not shown there to be design in the first place. How can you proclaim that "design argument" is still valid when you have not shown design? Once again, I will be happy to look at your evidence, just as soon as you present it.

Evidence for fine-tuning has been presented and as far as I could understand you don't disagree with the idea that the universe si finely tuned....

so the only remaining question is

what is the better explanation for the fine tuning of the universe?

apart from a designer do you have any other suggestion?.........

You are going to have to run this evidence by me again, because all I have seen you present thus far is a counterfactional conditional. Again, from where I am sitting, you are holding an empty bag.

we know that intelligent designers can create finely tuned patters, and we know that the existence of a designer of the universe is at least posible (by your own admition)

so until you provide a better explanation we most accept design as the best hypothesis,

:lol:

Thus, you are relying on your counterfactional conditional as evidence! Beyond that, you still have not demonstrated any fine-tuning. You have simply proclaimed it. What else was I honestly expecting.

 

[leroy]

Based on your understanding on the concept fine tuning....




does a Basket Ball entering to a Hoop require fine tuning?

 

[ldmitruk]

Based on your understanding on the concept fine tuning....




does a Basket Ball entering to a Hoop require fine tuning?

It does based on your definition.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Based on your understanding on the concept fine tuning....



does a Basket Ball entering to a Hoop require fine tuning?

That really depends on what you mean by finely-tuned. You keep trying to say it implies design, but if we take this for example:

That was luck. The basketball made it in in spite of the shooter. Thus, you tell me. Does a basketball entering a hoop require fine-tuning? No, not in all cases, especially since you think fine-tuning requires a designer. This is why I think your second term, life permitting universe is a far better term for what you have been trying to talk about. It does not have the question begging built into it like fine-tuning.

However, this gets away from the point. I am still waiting for you to provide any evidence of this fine-tuning. Simply pointing to the initial conditions of the universe as we know it and claiming they are fine-tuned is not evidence. You need to support that claim.

 

[tuxbox]

does a Basket Ball entering to a Hoop require fine tuning?

Yes, it does. The basketball has to be a certain size in order to fit into the hoop, which means it needs to be designed to fit. That being said, I do not see how that is relevant to the fine-tuning of the universe?

 

[leroy]

Based on your understanding on the concept fine tuning....



does a Basket Ball entering to a Hoop require fine tuning?

That really depends on what you mean by finely-tuned. You keep trying to say it implies design, but if we take this for example:

That was luck. The basketball made it in in spite of the shooter. Thus, you tell me. Does a basketball entering a hoop require fine-tuning? No, not in all cases, especially since you think fine-tuning requires a designer. This is why I think your second term, life permitting universe is a far better term for what you have been trying to talk about. It does not have the question begging built into it like fine-tuning.

However, this gets away from the point. I am still waiting for you to provide any evidence of this fine-tuning. Simply pointing to the initial conditions of the universe as we know it and claiming they are fine-tuned is not evidence. You need to support that claim.

well that is the problem, fine tuning doesn't necessary imply design, the reason why the Ball entering to a Hoop requires fine-tuning is because multiple independent forces and variables have to be balanced.

for example the ball has to be thrown at a very specific distance, with a specific force, with an specific angle, the ball has to have a specific mass etc. if any of these variables would have been any different the ball would have not entered in to the Hoop.........in other words, there are many possible combinations, but only 1 or few combinations would allow the ball to enter in to the Hoop.

I am working in a reply, but keep in mind that it is very hard to discuss with someone who doesn't even understand the concept of fine tuning, .......how do you feel when you argue with creationists that don't know what natural selection is?.......well that is how I am feeling now.

Wikipedia has a useful definition,

In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values. The heuristic rule that parameters in a fundamental physical theory should not be too fine-tuned is called naturalness.[1][2] Explanations often invoked to resolve fine-tuning problems include natural mechanisms by which the values of the parameters may be constrained to their observed values, and the anthropic principle.
The idea that Naturalness will explain fine tuning was brought into question by Nima Arkani-Hamed, a theoretical physicist, in his talk 'Why is there a Macroscopic Universe?', a lecture from the mini-series "Multiverse & Fine Tuning" from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project, A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration 2013. In it he describes how naturalness has usually provided a solution to problems in physics; and that it had usually done so earlier than expected. However, in addressing the problem of the cosmological constant, naturalness has failed to provide an explanation though it would have been expected to have done so a long time ago.
The necessity of fine-tuning leads to various problems that do not show that the theories are incorrect, in the sense of falsifying observations, but nevertheless suggest that a piece of the story is missing. For example, the cosmological constant problem (why is the cosmological constant so small?); the hierarchy problem; the strong CP problem, and others.
An example of a fine-tuning problem considered by the scientific community to have a plausible "natural" solution is the cosmological flatness problem, which is solved if inflationary theory is correct: inflation forces the universe to become very flat, answering the question of why the universe is today observed to be flat to such a high degree

as you can note, fine tuning does not necessary imply design, in your video fine tuning was achieved by chance, and Wikipedia mentioned an example of natural occurring fine tuning (the flatness problem) this is an example of what William Lane Craig would call Physical necessity. hence the logical structure of the argument.

1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-15#ixzz4OQf0GNF5

one of the assertions that I am making is that life permitting universes requiere fine tuning, you know what I mean by life permitting universe and you know (hopefully)what I mean by fine tuning, so do you grant this assertion?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

well that is the problem, fine tuning doesn't necessary imply design, the reason why the Ball entering to a Hoop requires fine-tuning is because multiple independent forces and variables have to be balanced.

for example the ball has to be thrown at a very specific distance, with a specific force, with an specific angle, the ball has to have a specific mass etc. if any of these variables would have been any different the ball would have not entered in to the Hoop.........in other words, there are many possible combinations, but only 1 or few combinations would allow the ball to enter in to the Hoop.

I am working in a reply, but keep in mind that it is very hard to discuss with someone who doesn't even understand the concept of fine tuning, .......how do you feel when you argue with creationists that don't know what natural selection is?.......well that is how I am feeling now.

Wikipedia has a useful definition,

In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values. The heuristic rule that parameters in a fundamental physical theory should not be too fine-tuned is called naturalness.[1][2] Explanations often invoked to resolve fine-tuning problems include natural mechanisms by which the values of the parameters may be constrained to their observed values, and the anthropic principle.
The idea that Naturalness will explain fine tuning was brought into question by Nima Arkani-Hamed, a theoretical physicist, in his talk 'Why is there a Macroscopic Universe?', a lecture from the mini-series "Multiverse & Fine Tuning" from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project, A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration 2013. In it he describes how naturalness has usually provided a solution to problems in physics; and that it had usually done so earlier than expected. However, in addressing the problem of the cosmological constant, naturalness has failed to provide an explanation though it would have been expected to have done so a long time ago.
The necessity of fine-tuning leads to various problems that do not show that the theories are incorrect, in the sense of falsifying observations, but nevertheless suggest that a piece of the story is missing. For example, the cosmological constant problem (why is the cosmological constant so small?); the hierarchy problem; the strong CP problem, and others.
An example of a fine-tuning problem considered by the scientific community to have a plausible "natural" solution is the cosmological flatness problem, which is solved if inflationary theory is correct: inflation forces the universe to become very flat, answering the question of why the universe is today observed to be flat to such a high degree

as you can note, fine tuning does not necessary imply design, in your video fine tuning was achieved by chance, and Wikipedia mentioned an example of natural occurring fine tuning (the flatness problem) this is an example of what William Lane Craig would call Physical necessity. hence the logical structure of the argument.

1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-15#ixzz4OQf0GNF5

one of the assertions that I am making is that life permitting universes requiere fine tuning, you know what I mean by life permitting universe and you know (hopefully)what I mean by fine tuning, so do you grant this assertion?

The highlghted texts show why any claim that a supernatural creator-entity caused the universe is baseless.

How does Craig - or you - know it's not due to physical necessity, never mind chance??

You've just shown why both your and WLC's claims are false!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

well that is the problem, fine tuning doesn't necessary imply design, the reason why the Ball entering to a Hoop requires fine-tuning is because multiple independent forces and variables have to be balanced.

for example the ball has to be thrown at a very specific distance, with a specific force, with an specific angle, the ball has to have a specific mass etc. if any of these variables would have been any different the ball would have not entered in to the Hoop.........in other words, there are many possible combinations, but only 1 or few combinations would allow the ball to enter in to the Hoop.

:facepalm:

As I said in my blog post:

First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; an example of a counterfactual conditional. Simply because things would be different does not mean that life or a universe could not exist. They may not be as we see them today, but that alone does not mean that the possibility for life and a universe are dependent on the fine-tuning of the universe as we know it. This is an unjustified claim built into the argument that should be challenged. Beyond that, the theist also has not shown that the fine-tuning of our universe could be anything different. It could just as easily be that all possible universes have the same fine-tuning.

[Emphasis added.]

How many times are you going to go over the same point and I am going to have to point out the problem with it? We both already agree on the initial conditions of the universe as we know it. Now, you have to demonstrate that not only could those conditions be different, but that all other conditions would not lead to life.

I am working in a reply, but keep in mind that it is very hard to discuss with someone who doesn't even understand the concept of fine tuning, .......how do you feel when you argue with creationists that don't know what natural selection is?.......well that is how I am feeling now.

To my blog once again:

The Fine-Tuning Argument is essentially saying that the parameters of the universe as we know it are placed in such a way to allow life as we know it to exist.

Correct me where I am wrong.

Wikipedia has a useful definition,

In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values. The heuristic rule that parameters in a fundamental physical theory should not be too fine-tuned is called naturalness.[1][2] Explanations often invoked to resolve fine-tuning problems include natural mechanisms by which the values of the parameters may be constrained to their observed values, and the anthropic principle.
The idea that Naturalness will explain fine tuning was brought into question by Nima Arkani-Hamed, a theoretical physicist, in his talk 'Why is there a Macroscopic Universe?', a lecture from the mini-series "Multiverse & Fine Tuning" from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project, A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration 2013. In it he describes how naturalness has usually provided a solution to problems in physics; and that it had usually done so earlier than expected. However, in addressing the problem of the cosmological constant, naturalness has failed to provide an explanation though it would have been expected to have done so a long time ago.
The necessity of fine-tuning leads to various problems that do not show that the theories are incorrect, in the sense of falsifying observations, but nevertheless suggest that a piece of the story is missing. For example, the cosmological constant problem (why is the cosmological constant so small?); the hierarchy problem; the strong CP problem, and others.
An example of a fine-tuning problem considered by the scientific community to have a plausible "natural" solution is the cosmological flatness problem, which is solved if inflationary theory is correct: inflation forces the universe to become very flat, answering the question of why the universe is today observed to be flat to such a high degree

Yes, I understand what you are claiming. Now demonstrate that the initial conditions could be different and those differences amount to universes that do not produce any type of life. To make this clear, we both already agree that they can be changed theoretically. I am asking for any evidence that they can be different in reality. Unless this is done, any claim of fine-tuning seems very premature.

as you can note, fine tuning does not necessary imply design, in your video fine tuning was achieved by chance, and Wikipedia mentioned an example of natural occurring fine tuning (the flatness problem) this is an example of what William Lane Craig would call Physical necessity. hence the logical structure of the argument.

Okay. Thus, your problem is doubly hard, since not only do you have to demonstrate that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned (for anything), but also that a designer is behind it. That means even if you could point to fine-tuning, you would than need more evidence to point to a designer being behind it. Such a burden you hold.

1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-15#ixzz4OQf0GNF5

one of the assertions that I am making is that life permitting universes requiere fine tuning, you know what I mean by life permitting universe and you know (hopefully)what I mean by fine tuning, so do you grant this assertion?

The second premise is just a bold face assertion. No one has demonstrated that. I reject your bold face assertion. You are going to have to try harder than citing an Apologist. Try actually reading some cosmology. Beyond that, your assertion that life permitting universes require fine-tuning is not justified. Why not start justifying some of these bold face assertions?

 

[leroy]

That really depends on what you mean by finely-tuned. You keep trying to say it implies design, but if we take this for example:

The Fine-Tuning Argument is essentially saying that the parameters of the universe as we know it are placed in such a way to allow life as we know it to exist

again the problem is that you don't understand the concept of fine tuning, you don't understand the argument, and even worst you don't seem to be interested in understanding the argument,

this is the first video of a series of 3 or 4 videos that explains the argument with detail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4s7DBMn3d0

[*]watch the videos
[*]make an honest effort to understand the argument
[*] after you do that, explain clearly and unambiguously your points of disagreement

lets make a review of your 3 original objections.

First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; an example of a counterfactual conditional. Simply because things would be different does not mean that life or a universe could not exist. They may not be as we see them today, but that alone does not mean that the possibility for life and a universe are dependent on the fine-tuning of the universe as we know it. This is an unjustified claim built into the argument that should be challenged. Beyond that, the theist also has not shown that the fine-tuning of our universe could be anything different. It could just as easily be that all possible universes have the same fine-tuning.
 
Second, this argument does not take into account evolution. Built into this argument is the assumption that we (either humans or all life on this planet) perfectly fit. The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun, the Moon is just large enough to keep our axis stable, Jupiter is just large enough and far enough away to keep us safe from space junk, etc… However, what the theist usually fails to account for in this picture is the 14 billion years of history the universe has gone through, 4.543 billion years of our planet’s own history, and  ~4 billion years of life history on this planet. Most of the life history we see is shaped by selection and a lot of dumb luck thrown in for good measure. Essentially, it is asinine to say this planet/universe is fine-tuned for us. If anything, we are finely-tuned by the environment.
 
Third and by far the largest problem for this argument. As of the writing of this post, we currently know of one planet in our solar system that supports life. That life is supported mainly on its surface, and (except for Tardigrades), species can only survive in certain environments. There are seven other planets in our solar system (plus a few hundred moons) that do not support life (as far as we know now). There are a few possible other places in our solar system that might have life (i.e. Mars and a few moons around Jupiter or Saturn). Thus, out of several celestial bodies in our solar system, there are less than ten of them that could support life. Besides this, there is empty space between those celestial bodies wherein life cannot exist. Basically, whenever a theist tries to use the Fine-Tuning Argument, they are essentially saying; “Look at this earth size planet. It has one microorganism on it. Thus, the planet must be finely-tuned for the microorganism.” Any engineer would look at that system and conclude that it was poorly tuned if its purpose was for sustaining that microorganism. If this universe was fine-tuned for anything, it was fine-tuned for creating black holes and not life.

First objection

the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life

that is a straw man, no theist has ever made that argument, granted our universe is not the only possible life permitting universe, no theist that I know of would deny this. .....can you provide an example of a theist that has made that argument? if you cant provide such example I have no other option but to assume that you are liar and invented that straw man

.

It could just as easily be that all possible universes have the same fine-tuning

sure, that is a possibility, no one is arguing that design is the only possibility, other possibilities might be

....logical necessity

.....scientific (psychical) necessity

...... Chance

...... A combination of more than 1 of this alternatives.

what I am arguing is that design is THE BEST explanation, but no one is arguing that design is the only possible explanation.

what you have to do is provide an alternative to design, and explain why is that alternative better than the design hypothesis.

An uncontroversial fact of science> Life permitting universes depend on a delicate balance of values of multiple independen constants and forces.
this is what it is meant by fine tuning

The only question is.............what is the best explanation for this uncontroversial fact

I am proposing design as the best explanation, since you haven't provided any alternative explanation, I win by default.

only until you provide an alternative explanation, I would have to provide evidence that suggest that design is a better explanation than your selected alternative.

If you still think that you don't have to provide an alternative explanation for fine tuning, then I am out of this conversation,


second objection
You are dealing with a false dilema, all theist will grant that live could have existed in a wide range of possible universes, and with a wide rage of environmental conditions.

the problem is that most universes that are logically possible, would not even have matter, the only assumption that is being made is that life can not exist in a universe without matter. .......I am pretty sure we both agree that this is a valid assumption.

third objection
that is a very weak argument against the design hypothesis. proving that the universe is unnecessary too big and complex to support life in this tiny planet doesn't invalidates, or even harms the design hypothesis.

multiple times I mentioned pyramids as an example, these buildings are seemingly, unnecessarily too big and complex to serve its apparent purpose *(burry a dead body) but a all the time instead of commenting on this reply you simply change the topic and make an irrelevant comment.

for example
dandan

yes and the vas majority of the volume of the grate pyramids is hostile for burring dead bodies, only a small portion of the pyramids can be used to burry dead people.....but yet no one would argue that therefore the pyramids where not created by intelligent designers

.

HWN

Again, we know they were created by ancient Egyptians because of evidence, not because of any fine-tuning. However, thank you for once again defeating your own argument. I will be waiting here for you to present any evidence of this fine-tuning though. Whenever you are ready.

Note how your reply is completely irrelevant to my comment, the evidence that leads us to know that pyramids re design is irrelevant, what you have to do is prove your assertions, namely

if "A" is more complex than what it needs to be you cant infer design.


pyramids prove that this assertion is false, nothing more, but feel free to provide evidence that supports your assertion, or you can simply admit that the assertion is stupid and wrong.


So all you have is 2 straw men, and 1 weak argument.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The Fine-Tuning Argument is essentially saying that the parameters of the universe as we know it are placed in such a way to allow life as we know it to exist

again the problem is that you don't understand the concept of fine tuning, you don't understand the argument, and even worst you don't seem to be interested in understanding the argument,

Yet you did not point out what was wrong with my short summery of the argument. One wonders why?

this is the first video of a series of 3 or 4 videos that explains the argument with detail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4s7DBMn3d0

[*]watch the videos
[*]make an honest effort to understand the argument
[*] after you do that, explain clearly and unambiguously your points of disagreement

Now you offer up a thirty minute video made by William L. Craig, an apologist and not a scientist, as your go to source. That does explain a lot. Instead of wasting thirty minutes to find out I am right, let us just check a source you should trust.

Creation Wiki[/url]"]Cosmic fine-tuning is the evidence that every little aspect of life is perfectly placed in order to sustain life. If altered even by the slightest amount, life would not be able to exist. How could something so specific have happened by chance? There are multitudes of examples of things so finely tuned, such that if even a single element were different, life could not exist.

That appears to be exactly what I said, and that is probably because this is what I referenced when I wrote my post. Thus, if you and Craig say something different, state it clearly here and start cleaning your own side up as well.

lets make a review of your 3 original objections.

[Snipped for space.]

First objection

the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life

that is a straw man, no theist has ever made that argument, granted our universe is not the only possible life permitting universe, no theist that I know of would deny this. .....can you provide an example of a theist that has made that argument? if you cant provide such example I have no other option but to assume that you are liar and invented that straw man

Point taken. I did overstate that quite a bit in the original post. To restate that; the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the best way the universe could exist in order to permit life. Stating my objection this way makes the rest of my argument stronger, since one of the points I am making with this argument is that this universe is actually very poorly designed for life. Thus, the theist would have to concede limitations on their deity or that life was not the purpose of this universe if designed.

.

It could just as easily be that all possible universes have the same fine-tuning

sure, that is a possibility, no one is arguing that design is the only possibility, other possibilities might be

....logical necessity

.....scientific (psychical) necessity

...... Chance

...... A combination of more than 1 of this alternatives.

what I am arguing is that design is THE BEST explanation, but no one is arguing that design is the only possible explanation.

How have you argued for this? Thus far (and you did this again in the post I am replying to), all you have done is state your conclusion and provide no evidence or evidence to support your case. I am still waiting for you to make an argument and not just make assertions.

what you have to do is provide an alternative to design, and explain why is that alternative better than the design hypothesis.

:lol: :facepalm:

No I do not. Please stop trying to shift your burden to me. Just because you can string words into a sentence does not mean your opinion on the origin of the universe as we know it have any substance. You still have not provided anything to show why anyone should take your assertions seriously.

An uncontroversial fact of science> Life permitting universes depend on a delicate balance of values of multiple independen constants and forces.
this is what it is meant by fine tuning

Well, if fine-tuning really only refers to "delicate balance of values of multiple independent constants and forces" than I am fine with that. However, it always seems that people who make this argument (like my above source) always try to extend it to implying that there must be a designer behind it. However, we both already agree on the initial conditions of this universe.

The only question is.............what is the best explanation for this uncontroversial fact

I am proposing design as the best explanation, since you haven't provided any alternative explanation, I win by default.

:lol:

There you go turning around and pretending that those initial conditions imply anything beyond what they are. First of all, you have made a perfect god of the gaps argument right there. Second, beyond that, all you have done is argued from your ignorance, to state that you have argued is even a stretch. At best, you have simply asserted things to be true. Now if only you would start providing evidence or evidence you would act least have an argument. Third, simply because you can make an assertion and I do not does not mean because you have an assertion you win anything. The Ancient Greeks thought Poseidon was the cause of earthquakes. Did they win that argument because they kept asserting it and no one had a better answer?

only until you provide an alternative explanation, I would have to provide evidence that suggest that design is a better explanation than your selected alternative.

Wrong. You are making the claim to knowledge. You have to back up that claim with actual facts and evidence. Anyone can make an assertion, actually backing up that assertion is another story. Just because I do not know does not mean I am going to believe the first assertion someone presents to me. I am not that gullible.

If you still think that you don't have to provide an alternative explanation for fine tuning, then I am out of this conversation,

second objection
You are dealing with a false dilema, all theist will grant that live could have existed in a wide range of possible universes, and with a wide rage of environmental conditions.

the problem is that most universes that are logically possible, would not even have matter, the only assumption that is being made is that life can not exist in a universe without matter. .......I am pretty sure we both agree that this is a valid assumption.

:facepalm:

Here we have a perfect example of your poor reading comprehension, again. I said this before to you, my second objection is to the universe as we know it and not any other possible universe. Dealing with our universe, there is ~13 billion years of history that are just ignored by people that employ this argument plus evolution which allows life to adapt to an range of different environments. Essentially, this part of my argument is two fold; if life (especially us) is the point of this universe, why so long? And once life gets started, it can take on several different forms, thus, how do you know that we are the point of this universe and not something like bacteria?

third objection
that is a very weak argument against the design hypothesis. proving that the universe is unnecessary too big and complex to support life in this tiny planet doesn't invalidates, or even harms the design hypothesis.

I guess you miss the point of that objection. My point is how does one look at the universe as we know it and conclude it was designed for life? As you keep admitting, we cannot since you admit it is poorly designed. Thus, what is allowing you to still conclude it is designed?

multiple times I mentioned pyramids as an example, these buildings are seemingly, unnecessarily too big and complex to serve its apparent purpose *(burry a dead body) but a all the time instead of commenting on this reply you simply change the topic and make an irrelevant comment.

When you mentioned pyramids, I pointed out that no one is concluding they are designed by appealing to any nebulous design they have. We know the pyramids are designed because of evidence. Again, we know humans make artifacts because we can see how they were manufactured. When you point to the pyramids and say we know they are designed, I agree because of the evidence. When you say the universe as we know it is designed, I ask for the evidence that allows you to conclude that and you start trying to make analogise to pyramids. Here is a novel idea, how about just present the evidence that convinced you the universe was designed.

for example
dandan

yes and the vas majority of the volume of the grate pyramids is hostile for burring dead bodies, only a small portion of the pyramids can be used to burry dead people.....but yet no one would argue that therefore the pyramids where not created by intelligent designers

.

HWN

Again, we know they were created by ancient Egyptians because of evidence, not because of any fine-tuning. However, thank you for once again defeating your own argument. I will be waiting here for you to present any evidence of this fine-tuning though. Whenever you are ready.

This has to be my favorite part of your post. Not because it once again exposes your poor reading comprehension (for not understanding my point; see after next quote), but because you finally admitted to being dandan! Now, the real question is, why did you come back with a different handle and make all the same dumb arguments?

Note how your reply is completely irrelevant to my comment, the evidence that leads us to know that pyramids re design is irrelevant, what you have to do is prove your assertions, namely

if "A" is more complex than what it needs to be you cant infer design.


pyramids prove that this assertion is false, nothing more, but feel free to provide evidence that supports your assertion, or you can simply admit that the assertion is stupid and wrong.

My reply is completely relevant, the point I was making just went over your head. We know pyramids are designed because of evidence. Their complexity is irrelevant to what I am saying. The point I am making is that you keep appealing to things that we know are designed based off of evidence as examples of how we should know the universe is designed as well. Well, the pyramids have evidence for their design, thus where is the evidence for the design of the universe? I can wait.

So all you have is 2 straw men, and 1 weak argument.

Nope. See above.

 

[leroy]

Ok so in summery.......

Point taken. I did overstate that quite a bit in the original post. To restate that; the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the best way the universe could exist in order to permit life. Stating my objection this way makes the rest of my argument stronger, since one of the points I am making with this argument is that this universe is actually very poorly designed for life. Thus, the theist would have to concede limitations on their deity or that life was not the purpose of this universe if designed.

So at the end of the day, objection 1 and objection 3 are pretty much the same objection,

on wonders, what do you mean by poor design? what metrics are you using, what criteria are you using? and even more important, why are you assuming that the designer would have the same criteria than you?

]

How have you argued for this? Thus far (and you did this again in the post I am replying to), all you have done is state your conclusion and provide no evidence or evidence to support your case. I am still waiting for you to make an argument and not just make assertions.

be realistic, I will not compare deign with ALL the other alternative hypothesis that have ever been proposed, select your favorite hypothesis and lets copare them.

the fact that you came to this forum and make a post "refuting" the fien tuning argument, implies that you already did your research and you are al ready familiar with the arguments and the evidence provided by theists, any discussion on this forum should be based on the particular details you disagree with.

I Wont elaborate an argument from scratch, I don't have time to do it, besides that has already been done (remember the video I quoted)

Here we have a perfect example of your poor reading comprehension, again. I said this before to you, my second objection is to the universe as we know it and not any other possible universe. Dealing with our universe, there is ~13 billion years of history that are just ignored by people that employ this argument plus evolution which allows life to adapt to an range of different environments. Essentially, this part of my argument is two fold; if life (especially us) is the point of this universe, why so long? And once life gets started, it can take on several different forms, thus, how do you know that we are the point of this universe and not something like bacteria?

ok so your objection 2 has nothing to do with this version of the fine tuning argument, therefore it is irrelevant.

[

So you basically only have 1 objection, your third objection.

Third and by far the largest problem for this argument. As of the writing of this post, we currently know of one planet in our solar system that supports life. That life is supported mainly on its surface, and (except for Tardigrades), species can only survive in certain environments. There are seven other planets in our solar system (plus a few hundred moons) that do not support life (as far as we know now). There are a few possible other places in our solar system that might have life (i.e. Mars and a few moons around Jupiter or Saturn). Thus, out of several celestial bodies in our solar system, there are less than ten of them that could support life. Besides this, there is empty space between those celestial bodies wherein life cannot exist. Basically, whenever a theist tries to use the Fine-Tuning Argument, they are essentially saying; “Look at this earth size planet. It has one microorganism on it. Thus, the planet must be finely-tuned for the microorganism.” Any engineer would look at that system and conclude that it was poorly tuned if its purpose was for sustaining that microorganism. If this universe was fine-tuned for anything, it was fine-tuned for creating black holes and not life

So basically what you are saying is that the fact that the universe is unnecessarily too big and to complex (UBC) to serve its alleged purpose (permit the existence of life) necessary indicates "no design"

UBC> Unnecessarily too Big and Complex

except for your own personal opinion you haven't done anything to support this assertion, what you have to do is prove that UBC necessary indicates no design. and even worst for some reason you already made u your mind and decided that you don't have to support any assertion, becase according to you atheist don't have to prove any assertion.

In my case, I have a very light burden, all I have to do to destroy your objection is to show that it is "possible" for something to be UBC and inteligentlly designed, and I already meant my burden, I presented an example of something that is UBC and designed (pyramids)

Pyramids are UBC but no one would argue no design or even poor design, quite the opposite, usually UBC indicates a very, very intelligent and talented designer. .............

At this point, the only question is

are you honest enough to admit that UBC does not necessary indicate "no-design" or even poor design?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Ok so in summery.......

Point taken. I did overstate that quite a bit in the original post. To restate that; the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the best way the universe could exist in order to permit life. Stating my objection this way makes the rest of my argument stronger, since one of the points I am making with this argument is that this universe is actually very poorly designed for life. Thus, the theist would have to concede limitations on their deity or that life was not the purpose of this universe if designed.

So at the end of the day, objection 1 and objection 3 are pretty much the same objection,

How are they pretty much the same? The first one is making the point that this assertion rests on a counter factual, while the third one points out just how poorly designed this universe is for life.

on wonders, what do you mean by poor design? what metrics are you using, what criteria are you using? and even more important, why are you assuming that the designer would have the same criteria than you?

I state that in the blog.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Basically, whenever a theist tries to use the Fine-Tuning Argument, they are essentially saying; “Look at this earth size planet. It has one microorganism on it. Thus, the planet must be finely-tuned for the microorganism.” Any engineer would look at that system and conclude that it was poorly tuned if its purpose was for sustaining that microorganism. If this universe was fine-tuned for anything, it was fine-tuned for creating black holes and not life.

Please work on your reading comprehension. A better question is, since we both agree that this universe is poorly designed, what criteria or metric is allowing you to say that it is designed?

How have you argued for this? Thus far (and you did this again in the post I am replying to), all you have done is state your conclusion and provide no evidence or evidence to support your case. I am still waiting for you to make an argument and not just make assertions.

be realistic, I will not compare deign with ALL the other alternative hypothesis that have ever been proposed, select your favorite hypothesis and lets copare them.

Stop trying to shift your burden. You are claiming knowledge, thus make your case for it.

the fact that you came to this forum and make a post "refuting" the fien tuning argument, implies that you already did your research and you are al ready familiar with the arguments and the evidence provided by theists, any discussion on this forum should be based on the particular details you disagree with.

Yep. That is what my blog post did.

I Wont elaborate an argument from scratch, I don't have time to do it,...

[sarcasm]Such a pity.[/sarcasm] However, one wonders what you are doing here since you refuse to present an argument.

... besides that has already been done (remember the video I quoted)

You mean the one from William L. Craig? Do you honestly think an apologist has anything relevant to say about this topic?

Here we have a perfect example of your poor reading comprehension, again. I said this before to you, my second objection is to the universe as we know it and not any other possible universe. Dealing with our universe, there is ~13 billion years of history that are just ignored by people that employ this argument plus evolution which allows life to adapt to an range of different environments. Essentially, this part of my argument is two fold; if life (especially us) is the point of this universe, why so long? And once life gets started, it can take on several different forms, thus, how do you know that we are the point of this universe and not something like bacteria?

ok so your objection 2 has nothing to do with this version of the fine tuning argument, therefore it is irrelevant.

This version? All versions end with us being the reason for design. I feel that makes this objection relevant. Again, why so long and how do you know humans are the reason behind it (that is after you actually show evidence for design)?

So you basically only have 1 objection, your third objection.

No. I have three. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

Third and by far the largest problem for this argument. As of the writing of this post, we currently know of one planet in our solar system that supports life. That life is supported mainly on its surface, and (except for Tardigrades), species can only survive in certain environments. There are seven other planets in our solar system (plus a few hundred moons) that do not support life (as far as we know now). There are a few possible other places in our solar system that might have life (i.e. Mars and a few moons around Jupiter or Saturn). Thus, out of several celestial bodies in our solar system, there are less than ten of them that could support life. Besides this, there is empty space between those celestial bodies wherein life cannot exist. Basically, whenever a theist tries to use the Fine-Tuning Argument, they are essentially saying; “Look at this earth size planet. It has one microorganism on it. Thus, the planet must be finely-tuned for the microorganism.” Any engineer would look at that system and conclude that it was poorly tuned if its purpose was for sustaining that microorganism. If this universe was fine-tuned for anything, it was fine-tuned for creating black holes and not life

So basically what you are saying is that the fact that the universe is unnecessarily too big and to complex (UBC) to serve its alleged purpose (permit the existence of life) necessary indicates "no design"

UBC> Unnecessarily too Big and Complex

Wrong, and I have explained this to you several times, so please work on your reading comprehension. We both already agree that the universe is poorly designed (e.g. all your talk of pyramids). Since that is the case, what is allowing you to even assume it is designed? You still have not shown anything that would lead one to make this basic assumption. All you have done is asserted it, than compared it to other poorly designed things. The difference being, we know those other poorly designed things were designed because we have actual evidence of them being designed. There is nothing like that for this universe. You are just creating a straw man of my argument.

except for your own personal opinion you haven't done anything to support this assertion, what you have to do is prove that UBC necessary indicates no design.

Incorrect, because you are arguing against the straw man you created. There is no reason to assume the universe as we know it is designed in the first place. It is your job to show that.

and even worst for some reason you already made u your mind and decided that you don't have to support any assertion, becase according to you atheist don't have to prove any assertion.

I can do that as soon as you prove to me that you stopped beating your wife. Oh that is right, you are trying to shift the burden to me once again. Just like it would be silly for me to ask you to show me that you stopped beating your wife with out showing evidence that you have done it before, it is silly for you to ask for evidence that the universe is not designed before anyone has actually shown that it might have been designed. You are making the claim to knowledge, you provide the evidence.

In my case, I have a very light burden, all I have to do to destroy your objection is to show that it is "possible" for something to be UBC and inteligentlly designed, and I already meant my burden, I presented an example of something that is UBC and designed (pyramids)

:lol: :facepalm:

That could be the case if I stuck to the straw man you created. However, I will not defend the straw man that exist only in your head. We both agree pyramids were designed because of evidence. We do not reline on a nebulous design inference from looking at the pyramids. Now please present your evidence that the universe as we know it is designed and stop pretending that we are relying on this nebulous design inference.

Pyramids are UBC but no one would argue no design or even poor design, quite the opposite, usually UBC indicates a very, very intelligent and talented designer. .............

Again with the straw man. We agree pyramids are designed based off of evidence, not any nebulous appeal to design. You will need to show the same for the universe as we know it.

At this point, the only question is

are you honest enough to admit that UBC does not necessary indicate "no-design" or even poor design?

I never did. This question comes about because of the straw man you have created in your head. Now, I am waiting for the evidence that this universe was actually designed.

 

[leroy]

Yes you did said, / implied that UPC implies no design stop pretending you didn't, what you call poor design and what I call UPC is the same thing

Stop answering with straw man arguments, stop refuting thing that I never said, and please stop pretending that you did understood my pint on pyramids.

That could be the case if I stuck to the straw man you created. However, I will not defend the straw man that exist only in your head. We both agree pyramids were designed because of evidence. We do not reline on a nebulous design inference from looking at the pyramids. Now please present your evidence that the universe as we know it is designed and stop pretending that we are relying on this nebulous design inference.

I am not using pyramids to make a design inference, how many times have you made the exact same straw man? how many times have you been corrected?

Using your criteria, pyramids are poorly design, but what you call poor design, does not indicate no design or even a designer with limitations. The only point that I am making is that what you call poor design does not indicate no design.


what you have to do is explain how does UPC (or whatever you meant in your objection 3) necessary implies non design stop pretending that you don't have a burden proof, you made the assertion so accept your burden.

Or to put it simple and in your words, you have to prove that what you call poor design indicates non design, (or at least limited designer)

I never did. This question comes about because of the straw man you have created in your head. Now, I am waiting for the evidence that this universe was actually designed.

ok so let me change the question

Are you honest enough to admit that what you call poor design does not necessary implies "no design" or even a designer with limitations?