Science Implies God's Existance
Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Implies: Strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).
God: The sentient, necessary, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that was the efficient cause of the contingent universe.
Existence: To have objective reality or being.
Rules and Other Debate Information:
R2: My opening arguments followed by Pro's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Pro)
R3: Rebuttals to opening arguments
R4: Defense of your original arguments.
BOP is shared.
Follow the format.
72 Hours to Post Argument.
10,000 Characters Max.
10 day voting period.
7 point voting system.
Posting sources in the comments is allowed.
I will be making arguments that imply the existence of a creator of the universe. I will base my arguments on probabilistic logic. Now I wait for Con to start with his argument.
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting. I haven’t done science only arguments debate in a while. My two arguments shall be from the nature of time and cosmology.
The argument formulated in Modus Ponens is,
1: If the universe never began to exist, then God doesn’t exist.
2: The universe never began to exist
C: God doesn’t exist.
Not much time needs to be spent on this one. The premise follows according to our accepted definition. God is the “efficient cause of the contingent universe.”
This entails the universe began to exist, otherwise there could be no efficient cause of its existence.
This follows from the scientific evidence of Eternalism.
Causality and time are very interwoven. In order for something to begin to exist, it must first not exist. However, under Eternalism, all states of time exist. There is simply no such thing as an entity not ontologically existing . All events ontologically exist. Therefore, if Eternalism is true, all events exist and nothing can really come into being.
The initial state of the universe would be analogous to inch one on a ruler. The ruler doesn’t begin to exist at inch one, as all inchs of the ruler exists. Another analogy is that a state like New York doesn’t begin to exist at its border. Its border is just one area in existing space, like the initial state of the universe is just one existing event in time out of many.
This view of time is supported by modern physics.
Equations from special relativity show that the value of T (time) is different depending on your reference frame. Values of T change depending on how close you are approaching the speed of light . This has been observed in the Muon experiment. The Muon’s internal clock (decay rate) are different depending on how fast they are moving . Different states of time exist for different observers.
Experiments from quantum mechanics also verify premise two. Observers can choose to entangle particles in the past . The particles don’t presently exist, as they’ve been destroyed. Yet, we can change the past configuration. This entails the past, and future exist (since when the particles existed, the future was determining their state) as well as the present. An even more amazing experiment was done by Ekaterina Moreva. His experiment demonstrated that change is something that’s a property within the universe. If we somehow transcended the universe, we wouldn’t observe any passage of time, we’d see all states of time . Time is something that exists within the universe, external to the universe, all states of time would be observed.
Science heavily supports eternalism, which is incompatible with God’s existence. The initial state of the universe has always existed along with all other states of time on a block. It couldn’t have begun to exist, and therefore God doesn’t exist.
Note that, this argument is NOT claiming the past is infinite. The past can very well be finite and everything still works.
The argument in a Modus Tollens format is,
1: If God exists, the universe is guaranteed to come into existence.
2: The universe wasn’t guaranteed to come into existence.
C: God doesn’t exist.
This premise is modest enough. If God is all powerful, it follows that whatever he wills to happen, must necessarily happen. If God wants the universe to come into being, it will happen regardless of anything else. The alternative is that God didn’t want to cause the universe. But, then he is either imperfect (He accidently created the universe) or not omnibenevolent (He didn’t care if other beings came to be). Both are not viable solutions
Modern Cosmology shows that the universe might not have came into existence.
If we follow the laws of general relativity into the early universe, it entails that the earliest state of the universe was a singularity . Within a singularity all of the laws of physics break down . It is a completely inanimate state, devoid of order and completely unpredictable. This means there is no guarantee that the universe will come into being. The universe could have just as easily stayed a singularity or vanished entirely.
However, one can object that the laws of general relativity don’t include quantum mechanics in its model. This is correct, but the premise still holds. In fact, it’s easier to prove the premise with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is inherently indeterministic. Events in quantum mechanics operate on probability . If quantum mechanics was relevant in the early universe, it too wouldn’t have guaranteed the universe’s existence.
There are other interpretations of quantum mechanics that remove randomness as a fact of the particles, but these have many problems. They violate Occam’s razor by either making topics more complicated than they need to be (Bohmian mechanics does this with spin ) or by positing the existence of billions of parallel universes. Furthermore, Bohm’s mechanics only interprets the Schrodinger equation, not quantum field theory . It is incomplete. It has no “mathematically sound version of quantum field theory.”  which further indicates that we should use the Copenhagen interpretation.
Lastly, if Quantum cosmology was a sound escape of this argument, it nonetheless isn’t a good position for the theist to be in. Hawking’s quantum cosmology and the Ali/Das model entail a beginningless universe . Loop quantum gravity holds to the big bounce. This means the universe would die out and be reborn forever, the cause of the universe the previous universe. String theory implies the universe came from a symmetry breaking event caused by a quantum fluctuation . They all contradict theism.
Modern cosmology entails the universe might not have existed. If God created the universe, this would be false. Any attempted out like appealing to quantum cosmology only further harms the theist's position.
The resolution is affirmed.
Remember Pro, you don’t address these until round 3. You are to give your supporting arguments in this round.
 Robert M. Wald. General Relativity. p. 99.
From scientific study we can observe the great fine tuning of the universe. Which, by statistical logic, highly imply an intelligent cause, not natural processes or mere chance.
The Cosmological Parameters of the Universe:
The list goes on….
The above list is scientific proof universe has many parameters which are finely tuned and by statistical logic imply design. Which imply the existence of God (the designer)
The chances of having so many parameters in the universe fine-tuned are practically nothing. By statistical reasoning, it is not logical to attribute it to mere chance. A better explanation is that these parameters are so finely tuned because the universe was indeed designed.
Origin of Life
The probability of building a 150 amnioacid long protein (very basic) chain is 1 in 10^164.
Universal Probability Bound:
To support statistical reasoning, and show that attributing the universes properties to chance is logically incoherent, I will elaborate on the Universal Probability Bound.
Anything with a lower probability than that of 1 in 10ˆ150 can by logically denied. Based on the following:
10ˆ80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10ˆ45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (the inverse of the Planck time).
10ˆ25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10ˆ150 = 10ˆ80 × 10ˆ45 × 10ˆ25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.
An upper bound on the computational resources of the universe in its entire history. This is estimated by Seth Lloyd as 10ˆ120 elementary logic operations on a register of 10ˆ90 bits
The improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe greatly exceed the plausible limit, thus can be logically denied. By mathematical reason, God is implied by observing the universe.
Statistical reasoning is the basis for scientific inferences, and cannot be ignored.
I really wish Pro would’ve only listed a handful of examples. It simply isn’t necessary to list 33 examples when only a few would prove his point. A handful of examples also means he can focus heavily on a few rather than lightly on a lot. Now, to the problems with the argument.
First, the argument concludes God without reason. Why not believe the fine tuning argument is an argument for a multiverse? A multiverse may exist , I see no reason we should believe the fine tuning argument is proves God and not a multiverse.
Second, Pro’s examples are flawed. When we undergo further investigation into the claims of fine tuning ,we will see that they are bad examples.
He includes examples like G (gravitational constant), C (speed of light), the uncertainty magnitude (although I don’t see how that relates to oxygen transport to the cells) and the relativistic dilation factor. All these constants are not dimensionless, meaning they are dependant on units for their value . Relativity and quantum mechanics have no dimensionless constants , and therefore they are “arbitrary human conventions. As long as you stick with some choice or other you will do okay.” . There is nothing to tune, since it’s arbitrary.
The other forces of the universe don’t seem to be fine tuned either. The universe can exist without weak interaction  and Dr. Victor Stenger points out that the electromagnetic force and the strong nuclear force can compensate for each other.
“If ε is too small to overcome the electrical repulsion of protons, then we can simply lower the value of α”
As you can see, this allows quite a variation. Not as tight as Pro wishes to convey. This shows Pro’s arguments hold the assumption that constants exist in a vacuum, when in reality some constants would be changed to compensate. This assumption is also prevalent in the big bang ripples example, but we’ll get to those later.
Furthermore, the values of these forces isn’t constant. The fine structure constant “….only holds for low energies, and α, like the strength parameters of the strong and weak forces, varies with energy.” 
Strong interaction actually isn’t constant even at lower energies. It possesses asymptotic freedom .
Another problem with Pro’s examples, is that they don’t take into account that some parameters are fixed by certain laws of physics.
The ratio of various particles to other particles for example is the result of charge conservation . The expansion rate of the universe, the mass density of the universe, and the uniformity of radiation must be the way it is by cosmic inflation . By the second law of thermodynamics, the current entropy of the universe was determined by the previous entropy state  . The initial entropy state has “...a constraint, WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities and this seems to be what confines the Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space. [state of low entropy]” . The entropy state, mass density, uniformity, nor the expansion rate of the universe is fine tuned, but merely a result of cosmological physics.
Some of the examples can be explained by a cosmological natural selection. The average distance between stars for example seems to be fine tuned because stars which form too close or to far away wouldn’t form any life giving planet. Any planet like Earth which can hold life will have the perfect amount of density and distance. It isn’t an example of fine tuning, but of a cosmic natural selection. Same goes for The supernovae and white dwarf examples. Where life exists, it follows these would be observed.
The examples hold the assumption that carbon based life like ours is the only life than can exist. This is shown by the water molecule example, 12C to 16O ratio, 4He ground state, and many of the examples listed in the above paragraph. Nothing prohibits different types of biochemical life that would be compatible to different values.
There is also a problem a vagueness. Pro doesn’t almost never gives any sort of definition of “larger” or “smaller”. It is true that if I was smaller, I wouldn’t be able to type this out, and if I was larger I also wouldn’t be able to type this out. This is unimpressive since there is a huge variety on what it means to be smaller or larger. As I will show, some examples the “larger” or “smaller” parameters aren’t very impressive to claim fine tuning. The proton decay, initial nucleons over anti-nucleons, and 4He energy level examples suffer from this problem.
Dr. Stenger calculated exactly how much larger or smaller the proton would have to decay for life to be exterminated by radiation.
“The decay rate depends on the strength of the unified force α U and the mass of the gauge boson that mediates the force MX. The corrected theory is likely to have the same dependence.
….I have plotted the mean proton decay lifetime, the reciprocal of decay rate, as a function of MX for three values of αU-1. The central line is for αU-1 = 25, the value we expect from the extrapolation to the unification energy i. The upper line is for αU-1 = 2500, two orders of magnitude higher. The lower line is for αU-1 = 0.25, two orders of magnitude lower.
We would have to go another ten orders of magnitude down in lifetime from the lowest point on this graph to reach lethality. Without a doubt, proton decay is not fine-tuned to prevent life being destroyed by radiation.” 
Stenger later talks about baryogenesis (initial nucleons over anti-nucleons). He states
“..we have already seen that we can change the parameters for proton decay by orders of magnitude before lethal radiation would be produced. Since the baryon asymmetry comes from basically the same processes, it is unlikely that that conclusion is going to be changed in this case.” 
8Be nor 4He seem to present any significant tuning for the carbon in stars to be produced.
“....a 0.06 MeV increase in the location of the level to 7.716 MeV would not significantly alter the carbon production in stellar environments. A decrease by the same amount to 7.596 MeV was needed before the carbon production increased significantly above its value in our universe….... Already we can see the excited state is not very fine-tuned. “ 
The claim that dimensions are fine tuned is a mere assertion. No evidence was given that there cannot exist the laws of physics with other dimensions. In fact, there are many models of the universe that propose other dimensions. They’ve claimed up to as many as 10 dimensions .
The mass of neutrinos isn’t fine tuned either. The number of neutrinos aren't fixed. Neutrinos form gases of noninteracting particles that have a fixed total energy. If there isn't enough mass, there will be more neutrinos and visa versa. The total energy is the same, therefore the effect of gravity doesn’t depend on the neutrinos .
If the value of the Big Bang ripples (Q) were smaller, then gravity would increase clumping. If masses were greater (if gravity was stronger), then Q would vary with the nucleon mass .
Lastly, the calculations on the cosmological constant that Deem used are wrong.
“I pointed out that this calculation ignored the zero-point energy of fermion (half integer spin) fields, which is negative and therefore subtracts from the boson value. If there were an equal number of boson and fermion degrees of freedom, then the total density would be zero. This would be the case if the symmetry between bosons and fermions, called supersymmetry, were perfect. Unfortunately, it is not perfect at low energies.”
Furthermore, Christian Physicist Don Page points out that the current value of the cosmological constant actually makes life difficult to form . If God fine tuned the universe, the constant would have a negative value.
None of Pro’s examples of fine tuning are that impressive when they are investigated. They hold assumptions that are either unsubstantiated or outright false.
Origin of life
There are some serious problems with this calculation. For one, the origin of life isn’t governed by chance but by the laws of chemistry and biochemistry. The calculations also assume one specific form of a protein, when there are many possible protein forms. Furthermore, they only take into account sequential trials, not simultaneous trials. Lastly, we don’t know how simple the earliest amino acid was, any calculation assumes too much. The calculations are heavily flawed and therefore cannot be taken as evidence 
Pro’s examples of fine tuning aren’t very good examples. They all fall apart upon further investigation. Pro’s contention from the origin of life has extremely flawed assumptions.
Pro has yet to show either the universe’s existence or the origin of life was fine tuned.
Back to Pro
 Victor Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 248 with Calbre reader layout.
 Ibid, p. 251
 Ibid, p. 367
 Victor Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 263, Calbre reader layout.
 Ibid, p. 266
 Victor Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 241, Calbre reader layout.
 Ibid, p. 282
 Ibid, p. 377
I understand that in this round I should not defend my initial arguments, but only refute the ones that you have brought forth in your opening arguments.
First of all, I think there is a general misunderstanding here. I showed interest in debating n7 on his debate titled “God Probably Doesn’t Exist”, but told him that I want to debate God’s existence with probability, but without anything to do with philosophy. He agreed and made this debate, which I accepted. Which is why this debate has science as the headline.
Nevertheless, Con has still based his arguments on philosophy. I feel this is a very unfair move by my opponent.
The debate was supposed to look at the observable world, and determine whether it implies the existence of God, or not. However, Con has made this impossible. Con has based his arguments not on what we know about the world, what we can observe, what we can experiment with, but based on presupposed theoretical truths. This is philosophy and destroys the topic of this debate.
Con has made it so that instead of debating on what the observable world implies, we have to debate on what the world is, which inevitably leads to “philosophy vs philosophy”
We should not have to debate what the world is, that’s why it is science. What we should debate is what the world implies. Yet Con has shifted the focus to the
Eternalism is defined as a point of view within the philosophy of time.
Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real and the growing block universe theory of time in which the past and present are real while the future is not. 
The basis for the first argument is this philosophy of time (eternalism)
But I feel that using such an argument goes against the will of this debate. It might be true that it is supported by certain scientific theories, as is the opposite: presentism, and there are arguments for and against each point of view, but since eternalism is a philosophy, I cannot falsify it. Which would make the debate pointless.
In regards to your cosmological argument, this one is even more philosophical.
1: If God exists, the universe is guaranteed to come into existence.
2: The universe wasn’t guaranteed to come into existence.
C: God doesn’t exist.
With regards to number 1, the premises are flawed. The second premise to be specific. Either the universe came into existence, or it didn’t.
If it didn’t, it is because of eternalism.
But eternalism is a philosophy of time. So by science, you can’t say that the universe didn’t come into existence.
it is not necessarily true. It is based on the assumption that you know God’s nature. Theoretically, God created the universe at one point, so before that, there was no universe. God could have simply not created a universe, as he is outside of the universe. Therefore number 1 is illogical. But apart from being logical or not, it is based on philosophy. It assumes to know the nature of God.
Therefore that entire argument is flawed.
“If God exists, the universe is guaranteed to come into existence” this is definitely different from “either God wanted the universe to start, or else he is imperfect”
“If we follow the laws of general relativity into the early universe, it entails that the earliest state of the universe was a singularity . Within a singularity all of the laws of physics break down . It is a completely inanimate state, devoid of order and completely unpredictable. This means there is no guarantee that the universe will come into being. The universe could have just as easily stayed a singularity or vanished entirely.”
This statement is based on theoretical assumptions. The singularity is theoretical and has not been proven to have existed. You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions based on theoretical, not observable or experimental premises.
This is how you have defined science:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
You are presupposing that time is eternal, you are holding to a certain philosophy, you are not taking this debate in the way that it should be, based on science.
My arguments have been scientific, not philosophic. They are definitely observable and definitely testable.
Your arguments on the other hand, are philosophical, tied together with logic, yes, but they are of philosophical nature. They are presupposing CERTAIN theoretical positions as true.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language
My opponent has inserted philosophy into the equation. This debate was supposed to be an observation of the observable world, and see what it implied.
However, because of the insertion of philosophy and presupposed, non-confirmed, theoretical characteristics of the world, me and my opponent cannot possibly debate on whether or not science implies the existence of God or not, simply because my opponent is basing his arguments on a hypothetical universe, where as I am basing my arguments on the current, observable, demonstratable characteristics of the universe and life. Therefore, debating on the premises he has set would be illogical, since his world is theoretical and different from mine.
It seems there is some confusion with the framework. I never agreed to have a debate without philosophy whatsoever, just with science implying atheism. I even explained why it’s impossible to have a debate with pure science and no philosophy in the debate referenced by Pro. The area that deals with God’s existence is called the philosophy of religion . It’s simply impossible for this debate to have no philosophy. It’s not unfair to use science to demonstrate a philosophy that prohibits God’s existence. This agrees with the parameters of the debate. My arguments do look to the observable world and extrapolates on what that would entail. The observable world entails the universe never began and that it might not have came into existence.
Any argument I made was justified heavily with science. Unless Pro wants to object to the principle of explaining why God’s definition entails something. However, Pro’s arguments would then be devoid of any basis. Since they still assume God wished to create life, had the power, knew how, ect.
Furthermore, Pro’s arguments also deal with philosophy. The FTA must argue that the universe wasn’t tuned by necessity, which is philosophical. Pro is arguing that science entails the philosophy of theism, whereas I am arguing science entails the philosophy of eternalism which entails atheism. Neither of these violate any parameter or rule of the debate, since implies doesn’t necessitate the use of pure science.
Pro’s attack is that mainly eternalism is philosophical and therefore he doesn’t have to respond. Eternalism may be a philosophy, that doesn’t entail it’s not scientific. In fact, it’s rephrased as a principle in relativity . It therefore, cannot be said to be outside the realm of science. He argues “since eternalism is a philosophy, I cannot falsify it”, but this is completely false. Science may have shown that there is absolute time and all other reference frames are invalid. In which presentism would be true.
Pro presents two responses for this. God might not have created the universe and a singularity is merely theoretical. Pro’s first responses commits the fallacy of equivocation and a strawman. I never stated that guaranteed meant a modal necessity. Pro refutes the first premise with a modal definition of “guaranteed” however, we’re already assuming God did create the universe (definition from round 1). So why would I argue from modality? This appears to be why Pro thinks the argument is mainly philosophical, but it’s obvious that stems from a misunderstanding.
Next, Pro claims a singularity isn’t proven to exist by observation. It should be noted that Pro gives no citation for this claim, it is an assertion. Anyway, I already demonstrated a singularity exists by the laws of general relativity. General relativity has been shown to be correct by observation time and time again . If GR is true, then so is the said singularity . Just because a singularity hasn’t been directly observed doesn’t mean it’s not science. Science is defined as:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Note my emphasis. A singularity follows from the observations of GR, it is a structure of the natural world that has been demonstrated through observation. It doesn’t entail direct observation is necessary. After all, if it was then Pro would have to believe the study of Pluto's orbit around the sun isn’t scientific. Since we know it takes 248 years to go around the sun by the laws of gravity , not via. direct observation because Pluto was discovered in 1930 . We can state we know this by observation because the laws of gravity are demonstrated by observation.
I also think it’s ironic that Pro uses this, since a majority of his examples of fine tuning (the argument itself too) are theoretical and not directly observed. We’ve never observed a different universe that possesses different values. All calculations must be theoretical based from observation, not by direct observation. Same goes for examples like, the expansion rate of the universe. We cannot practically fly to around the universe observing expansion directly, but we know what the expansion rate is by other means such as red shifting .
On the other hand, Pro might mean that a singularity hasn’t been proven because physics isn’t complete. Although I already answered this in my opening statement.
Pro is trying to use the framework of the debate to evade my arguments. The only content that wasn’t related to this was arguing that God might not have created the universe, which misunderstands the argument. Modal reasoning is irrelevant to the argument. The other was claiming that a singularity is theoretical, although theoretical is still scientific and doesn’t mean it’s not demonstrated to exist. It seems Pro misunderstands my arguments, the framework of the debate, and the nature of science itself.
To Pro, for the finial.
 Robert M. Wald. General Relativity. p. 99.
The Origin of Life
My opponent has claimed that the probability I claimed for abiogenesis is incorrect, because it is based on one specific form of protein, and does not account for all the possible forms.
This is false.
The calculations do indeed account for all the possible forms. Douglas Axe calculated all of the possible sequences, and also, all of the functional sequences. He discovered that the ratio of functional sequences to possible sequences is 1 to 10ˆ74. This is forms part of the calculation I posted. I used in the calculation.
My opponent also claimed that it is not known how simple the earliest aminoacid was.
Actually, we have a very good idea. The first self-replicating life would necessarily be independent. It could not live inside of another cell, because they did not exist yet.
The organism with the smallest genome is the Mycoplasma genitalium. It has one of the smallest genomes of any organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes.
It is worth noting that this organism is not independent, but lives inside another cell, that is why its genome is so small, it doesn’t have the functions necessary to live alone.
Since we are calculating the probability of an independent organism to arise by chance, it wouldn’t be a fair comparison. But we will use it anyway, to avoid conflicts.
My opponent may say that while this is the currently known simplest organism, there might have been a simpler one before. This reasoning is valid, but my opponent doesn’t have to worry about that because scientists have theorized the model for the simplest possible life form that could have existed. The general consensus is that is needs well over 400 genes. Some say 350 (which many disagree with), so for the sake of the argument I’ll take 350 genes, each consisting of polymers, which each consist of aminoacids.
Life aminoacids cannot bond through a non-peptide bond. If 2 aminoacids bond, there is a 50-50 chance that it would be vía a peptide bond or non-peptide bond. So for an aminoacid chain 150 aminoacids long, you get the probability of ½ x 150.
Next is the fact that for life, the aminoacids needs to be “left-handed” isomers. These come in a 1 to 2 ratio, so again, we apply the probability of ½ x 150.
But we could successfully form a 150 long chain, with only peptide bonds and only left handed isomers, and it might not even be functional. So we need combine those 2 calculations with the probability of the chain being functional, which we calculated is 1 in 10ˆ74
But that only accounts for one polymer, remember the organism needs 350.
Combined this probability greatly surpasses the universal probability bound, and therefore is logically impossible.
Indeed simultaneous trials would be necessary, using sequential trials would not make much of a difference, since the life span of aminoacids is almost nothing.
“the origin of life isn’t governed by chance but by the laws of chemistry and biochemistry.”
Are you suggesting biochemical predestination? That was proven wrong by the very person who initially proposed it. Biochemistry and chemistry are both subject to the laws of mathematics.
My opponent claims that many of my examples for fine tuning cannot be fine tuned since they are not dimensionless constants, and therefore arbitrary.
This is based on flawed reasoning.
Stenger defends the ambitious claim that the laws of nature could not have been different because they can be derived from the requirement that they be Point-of-View Invariant (hereafter, PoVI)…
We can formulate Stenger’s argument for this conclusion as follows:
LN1. If our formulation of the laws of nature is to be objective, it must be PoVI.
LN2. Invariance implies conserved quantities (Noether’s theorem).
LN3. Thus, “when our models do not depend on a particular point or direction in space or a particular moment in time, then those models must necessarily contain the quantities linear momentum, angular momentum, and energy, all of which are conserved. Physicists have no choice in the matter, or else their models will be subjective, that is, will give uselessly different results for every different point of view. And so the conservation principles are not laws built into the universe or handed down by deity to govern the behavior of matter. They are principles governing the behavior of physicists.” [FOFT p. 82, emphasis original]
This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation – the term “invariant” has changed its meaning between LN1 and LN2. (pp. 7-8)
Conclusion: We can now see the flaw in Stenger’s argument. Premise LN1 should read: If our formulation of the laws of nature is to be objective, then it must be covariant. Premise LN2 should read: symmetries imply conserved quantities. Since ‘covariant’ and ‘symmetric’ are not synonymous, it follows that the conclusion of the argument is unproven, and we would argue that it is false. The conservation principles of this universe are not merely principles governing our formulation of the laws of nature.
Even if the symmetries of the laws of nature were inevitable, it would still be an open question as to precisely which symmetries were broken in our universe and which were unbroken. (p. 18)
The fine tuning of the universe is not defined exactly by what parameters need to be set for life to exist.
Rather, they refer to the value of the parameters for the conditions to be optimal for life.
In the above graph, Con has tried to argue against fine tuning by showing that other values could still permit life. However, Con has failed to realize that the parameter is finely tuned. In the graph, the value is exactly in the middle. Exactly in the optimal point for the universe to exist perfectly. It may still persist if that value is changed, but it would not be optimal. It is finely tuned, it is in the optimal setting, the optimal value.
The problem of the apparently low entropy of the universe is one of the oldest problems of cosmology. The fact that the entropy of the universe is not at its theoretical maximum, coupled with the fact that entropy cannot decrease, means that the universe must have started in a very special, low entropy state. (p. 23)
Let’s return to Stenger’s proposed solution… Stenger takes it for granted that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. We can see this also in his use of the Friedmann equation, which assumes that space-time is homogeneous and isotropic. Not surprisingly, once homogeneity and isotropy have been assumed, Stenger finds that the solution to the entropy problem is remarkably easy.
We conclude that Stenger has not only failed to solve the entropy problem; he has failed to comprehend it. He has presented the problem itself as its solution. Homogeneous, isotropic expansion cannot solve the entropy problem – it is the entropy problem. Stenger’s assertion that “the universe starts out with maximum entropy or complete disorder” is false. A homogeneous, isotropic spacetime is an incredibly low entropy state. Penrose (1989) warned of precisely this brand of failed solution two decades ago... (p. 26)
Inflation is potentially a solution to a particularly impressive fine-tuning problem. Suppose that inflation did solve the fine-tuning of the density of the universe. Is it reasonable to hope that all fine-tuning cases could be solved in a similar way? We contend not, because inflation has a target
Inflation thus represents a very special case. Waiting inside the life-permitting range (L) is another physical parameter (p). Aim for p and you will get L thrown in for free. This is not true of the vast majority of fine-tuning cases. There is no known physical scale waiting in the life-permitting range of the quark masses, fundamental force strengths or the dimensionality of space-time. There can be no inflation-like dynamical solution to these fine-tuning problems because dynamical processes are blind to the requirements of intelligent life.
Most scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczekrecognize that the universe is fine tuned.
But based on the soul arguments of Victor Stenger, which have been exposed as fallacious by Dr Barnes, Con tries to argue that the universe is not fine-tuned. Con’s radical position must be backed up by conclusive evidence.
I think it was clear that this debate would be separate from philosophy. This is that my opponent said:
The existence of God falls under philosophy. Science only makes claims about the natural world and not the supernatural. Nonetheless, I believe I see what you're saying. You want to argue science implies God's existence. My arguments in this particular debate will deal heavily with philosophy.
So we did a separate debate, which was supposed to be about the natural world. My arguments are science. My opponent’s arguments are mixed in with philosophy.
Things like the expansion rate of the universe are not philosophical, because they can be observed by looking at the stars. Same goes for other fine-tuning arguments such as decay rates, these can be observed and tested.
Eternalism on the other hand, is indeed philosophical. It cannot be observed in any way. And inserting such an argument into this debate renders it seriously off topic, as it would then be a debate of philosophy vs philosophy. Clearly, statisfical logic shows that the universe was indeed designed, a multiverse explanation require bizarre inprobabilities. A designer is the most logical implication of the natural world.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|