Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Fine-Tuning Argument Greatly Limits God

Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
This is a logical argument that juxtaposes the aims of the Fine-Tuning Argument with the commonplace notion of a powerful God that is not limited by the laws of nature. This does not acknowledge that the FTA is sound at all or that God exists; they're just assumed for the sake of argument. In any case, the conclusion isn't terribly significant, but I believe this argument is logically sound. Please "skepticize" it, if you will! Thank you. :)

Primary Argument:

P1) Life exists.

P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.

P3) According to the Fine-Tuning Argument, it's necessary that the natural laws were fine-tuned for the existence of life to be possible.

P4) If it's not necessary for the natural laws to permit life, then it's not necessary for the natural laws to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.

C) Therefore, either the Fine-Tuning Argument is false or it's not possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life.


Premise elaborations:

P1) Obvious observation.

P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.

P3) The FTA boils down to claiming that the only reasonable explanation for the existence of life is that the natural laws of the universe were fine-tuned with the specific intention of supporting the existence of life. This is usually done from the angle that the odds are so small that the natural laws would be just right within an infinitesimally small margin, that any other alternative to "design" should be considered impossible.

P4) In other words, since it's assumed to be possible that the natural laws could have been alternately established as to not support the existence of life (i.e. not a necessity), then it follows that the natural laws don't necessarily have to be fine-tuned for it.

Logical Proof:

L = life, B = God can violate (break) natural laws, N = natural laws support life, F = natural laws are fine-tuned
# = is necessary, ^ = is possible (stupid DDO character inadequacies! ;P )

P1) L
P2) ^B > ~#N
P3) {FTA} > (^L > #F)
P4) ~#N > ~#F
+P5) {FTA} [Assumed Conditional Proof]
+P6) ^L > #F [P3, P5, Modus Ponens]
+P7) ^L [P1, Axiom M corollary]
+P8) #F [P6, P7, Modus Ponens]
+P9) ~~#F [P4, Double Negation]
+P10) #N [P8, P9, Modus Tollens]
+P11) ~~#N [P10, Double Negation]
+P12) ~^B [P2, P11, Modus Tollens]
P13) {FTA} > ~^B [P5-P12, Conditional Proof]
C) ~{FTA} v ~^B [P13, Material Implication]

Corollary Argument:

Additionally, the Fine-Tuning Argument rails against an anthropocentric ("human-centered") notion because it claims that the universe can support the emergence and existence of life, in general, and so conflicts with the [typical] religious importance of Earth and humanity. This renders humanity seemingly less crucial to God not necessarily of "center-stage" importance to Him. Further, if it's true that God cannot violate the natural laws to create life, it's possible that God cannot violate them for other purposes, as well, such as preventing other life from emerging.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 1:24:52 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a logical argument that juxtaposes the aims of the Fine-Tuning Argument with the commonplace notion of a powerful God that is not limited by the laws of nature. This does not acknowledge that the FTA is sound at all or that God exists; they're just assumed for the sake of argument. In any case, the conclusion isn't terribly significant, but I believe this argument is logically sound. Please "skepticize" it, if you will! Thank you. :)

Primary Argument:

P1) Life exists.

P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.

P3) According to the Fine-Tuning Argument, it's necessary that the natural laws were fine-tuned for the existence of life to be possible.

P4) If it's not necessary for the natural laws to permit life, then it's not necessary for the natural laws to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.

C) Therefore, either the Fine-Tuning Argument is false or it's not possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life.


Premise elaborations:

P1) Obvious observation.

P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.

P3) The FTA boils down to claiming that the only reasonable explanation for the existence of life is that the natural laws of the universe were fine-tuned with the specific intention of supporting the existence of life. This is usually done from the angle that the odds are so small that the natural laws would be just right within an infinitesimally small margin, that any other alternative to "design" should be considered impossible.

P4) In other words, since it's assumed to be possible that the natural laws could have been alternately established as to not support the existence of life (i.e. not a necessity), then it follows that the natural laws don't necessarily have to be fine-tuned for it.

Logical Proof:

L = life, B = God can violate (break) natural laws, N = natural laws support life, F = natural laws are fine-tuned
# = is necessary, ^ = is possible (stupid DDO character inadequacies! ;P )

P1) L
P2) ^B > ~#N
P3) {FTA} > (^L > #F)
P4) ~#N > ~#F
+P5) {FTA} [Assumed Conditional Proof]
+P6) ^L > #F [P3, P5, Modus Ponens]
+P7) ^L [P1, Axiom M corollary]
+P8) #F [P6, P7, Modus Ponens]
+P9) ~~#F [P4, Double Negation]
+P10) #N [P8, P9, Modus Tollens]
+P11) ~~#N [P10, Double Negation]
+P12) ~^B [P2, P11, Modus Tollens]
P13) {FTA} > ~^B [P5-P12, Conditional Proof]
C) ~{FTA} v ~^B [P13, Material Implication]

Corollary Argument:

Additionally, the Fine-Tuning Argument rails against an anthropocentric ("human-centered") notion because it claims that the universe can support the emergence and existence of life, in general, and so conflicts with the [typical] religious importance of Earth and humanity. This renders humanity seemingly less crucial to God not necessarily of "center-stage" importance to Him. Further, if it's true that God cannot violate the natural laws to create life, it's possible that God cannot violate them for other purposes, as well, such as preventing other life from emerging.

Fantastic OP.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 9:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a logical argument that juxtaposes the aims of the Fine-Tuning Argument with the commonplace notion of a powerful God that is not limited by the laws of nature. This does not acknowledge that the FTA is sound at all or that God exists; they're just assumed for the sake of argument. In any case, the conclusion isn't terribly significant, but I believe this argument is logically sound. Please "skepticize" it, if you will! Thank you. :)

Primary Argument:

P1) Life exists.

P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.

P3) According to the Fine-Tuning Argument, it's necessary that the natural laws were fine-tuned for the existence of life to be possible.

P4) If it's not necessary for the natural laws to permit life, then it's not necessary for the natural laws to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.

C) Therefore, either the Fine-Tuning Argument is false or it's not possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life.


Premise elaborations:

P1) Obvious observation.

P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.

P3) The FTA boils down to claiming that the only reasonable explanation for the existence of life is that the natural laws of the universe were fine-tuned with the specific intention of supporting the existence of life. This is usually done from the angle that the odds are so small that the natural laws would be just right within an infinitesimally small margin, that any other alternative to "design" should be considered impossible.

P4) In other words, since it's assumed to be possible that the natural laws could have been alternately established as to not support the existence of life (i.e. not a necessity), then it follows that the natural laws don't necessarily have to be fine-tuned for it.

Logical Proof:

L = life, B = God can violate (break) natural laws, N = natural laws support life, F = natural laws are fine-tuned
# = is necessary, ^ = is possible (stupid DDO character inadequacies! ;P )

P1) L
P2) ^B > ~#N
P3) {FTA} > (^L > #F)
P4) ~#N > ~#F
+P5) {FTA} [Assumed Conditional Proof]
+P6) ^L > #F [P3, P5, Modus Ponens]
+P7) ^L [P1, Axiom M corollary]
+P8) #F [P6, P7, Modus Ponens]
+P9) ~~#F [P4, Double Negation]
+P10) #N [P8, P9, Modus Tollens]
+P11) ~~#N [P10, Double Negation]
+P12) ~^B [P2, P11, Modus Tollens]
P13) {FTA} > ~^B [P5-P12, Conditional Proof]
C) ~{FTA} v ~^B [P13, Material Implication]

Corollary Argument:

Additionally, the Fine-Tuning Argument rails against an anthropocentric ("human-centered") notion because it claims that the universe can support the emergence and existence of life, in general, and so conflicts with the [typical] religious importance of Earth and humanity. This renders humanity seemingly less crucial to God not necessarily of "center-stage" importance to Him. Further, if it's true that God cannot violate the natural laws to create life, it's possible that God cannot violate them for other purposes, as well, such as preventing other life from emerging.

Great argument :)
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 1:51:36 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a logical argument that juxtaposes the aims of the Fine-Tuning Argument with the commonplace notion of a powerful God that is not limited by the laws of nature. This does not acknowledge that the FTA is sound at all or that God exists; they're just assumed for the sake of argument. In any case, the conclusion isn't terribly significant, but I believe this argument is logically sound. Please "skepticize" it, if you will! Thank you. :)

Primary Argument:

P1) Life exists.

P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.

I'm not sure P2 follows from the Fine Tuning Argument as it is normally stated, the argument is not that God necessarily violated natural laws, it is that God created the natural laws and did so with the intention of making them support the existence of life.

P3) According to the Fine-Tuning Argument, it's necessary that the natural laws were fine-tuned for the existence of life to be possible.

I don't think the argument is that it is "necessary", I've always seen it presented statistically, the discussion is always around the staggeringly unlikely probability that the laws could have happened to be what they are by chance alone. Your insertion of necessity is unwarranted.

P4) If it's not necessary for the natural laws to permit life, then it's not necessary for the natural laws to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.

You have taken an argument about probability and restated it as a deterministic argument about necessity, that just isn't the argument, the argument is that it is staggeringly unlikely that the laws would be what they are by chance alone, so it is more likely that they were purposefully designed.

C) Therefore, either the Fine-Tuning Argument is false or it's not possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life.


Therefore, the Fine-Tuning Argument is misrepresented, AND it wasn't about God violating natural laws anyway.

Premise elaborations:

P1) Obvious observation.

P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.

Again, the Theists that put forth the Fine Tuning Argument do not postulate that there were pre-existing natural laws that God violated, they postulate that God created the natural laws and consequently, the fact that the natural laws appear to have been fine tuned for the existence of life provides evidence of design and intent.

P3) The FTA boils down to claiming that the only reasonable explanation for the existence of life is that the natural laws of the universe were fine-tuned with the specific intention of supporting the existence of life. This is usually done from the angle that the odds are so small that the natural laws would be just right within an infinitesimally small margin, that any other alternative to "design" should be considered impossible.

There you go, that is indeed the argument, and as you have stated, it's a probabilistic argument, it's unwarranted to turn it into an argument about necessity or into an argument about God violating pre-existing natural laws, neither of those premises are accurate depictions of the Fine-Tuning Argument..

P4) In other words, since it's assumed to be possible that the natural laws could have been alternately established as to not support the existence of life (i.e. not a necessity), then it follows that the natural laws don't necessarily have to be fine-tuned for it.

True, but again, the argument was never that it is necessary that they were fine tuned, just that it's very likely that they were.

Logical Proof:

L = life, B = God can violate (break) natural laws, N = natural laws support life, F = natural laws are fine-tuned
# = is necessary, ^ = is possible (stupid DDO character inadequacies! ;P )

P1) L
P2) ^B > ~#N
P3) {FTA} > (^L > #F)
P4) ~#N > ~#F
+P5) {FTA} [Assumed Conditional Proof]
+P6) ^L > #F [P3, P5, Modus Ponens]
+P7) ^L [P1, Axiom M corollary]
+P8) #F [P6, P7, Modus Ponens]
+P9) ~~#F [P4, Double Negation]
+P10) #N [P8, P9, Modus Tollens]
+P11) ~~#N [P10, Double Negation]
+P12) ~^B [P2, P11, Modus Tollens]
P13) {FTA} > ~^B [P5-P12, Conditional Proof]
C) ~{FTA} v ~^B [P13, Material Implication]

Corollary Argument:

Additionally, the Fine-Tuning Argument rails against an anthropocentric ("human-centered") notion because it claims that the universe can support the emergence and existence of life, in general, and so conflicts with the [typical] religious importance of Earth and humanity.

That doesn't logically follow at all.

This renders humanity seemingly less crucial to God not necessarily of "center-stage" importance to Him.

Not at all.

" Further, if it's true that God cannot violate the natural laws to create life, it's possible that God cannot violate them for other purposes, as well, such as preventing other life from emerging.

As already addressed, it isn't an argument that God violated natural laws, so it has no bearing on whether or not He has the ability to violate natural laws, The contention is typically that He creates and sustains natural laws, the question of God's violation of natural laws is pretty much a non-sequitur.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 4:22:16 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a logical argument that juxtaposes the aims of the Fine-Tuning Argument with the commonplace notion of a powerful God that is not limited by the laws of nature. This does not acknowledge that the FTA is sound at all or that God exists; they're just assumed for the sake of argument. In any case, the conclusion isn't terribly significant, but I believe this argument is logically sound. Please "skepticize" it, if you will! Thank you. :)

Primary Argument:

P1) Life exists.

P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.
False premise. The laws don't "permit" the existence of life, God does.
P3) According to the Fine-Tuning Argument, it's necessary that the natural laws were fine-tuned for the existence of life to be possible.
No. The argument says that the calculations of what is existent in our universe makes the possibility the parameters for life occurring naturally by a random process is statistically what science would deem impossible, hence they are fine tuned.
P4) If it's not necessary for the natural laws to permit life, then it's not necessary for the natural laws to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.
Once again you are using natural laws as being of natural origin and stating because we call them natural they couldn't have a supernatural origin. Non sequitur
C) Therefore, either the Fine-Tuning Argument is false or it's not possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life.</stron>
. The argument refers to the "natural laws" as such to show how they couldn't be natural at all. They had to have supernatural origins and are therefore themselves a supernatural occurrence. You are using circular reasoning and stating the following.....
The fine tuning argument uses "natural laws" in its terminology so therefore it argues they ARE natural. It does not, It argues they have a supernatural origin. Natural is only used because those who oppose a supernatural origin of the universe should understand the mathematical possibility these laws occurred randomly and naturally contradicts what science would consider a possibility of chance. So our natural laws are in themselves supernatural because the odds of them being a natural event is statistically considered impossible by the standards in science.
Premise elaborations:

P1) Obvious observation.

P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.

P3) The FTA boils down to claiming that the only reasonable explanation for the existence of life is that the natural laws of the universe were fine-tuned with the specific intention of supporting the existence of life. This is usually done from the angle that the odds are so small that the natural laws would be just right within an infinitesimally small margin, that any other alternative to "design" should be considered impossible.

P4) In other words, since it's assumed to be possible that the natural laws could have been alternately established as to not support the existence of life (i.e. not a necessity), then it follows that the natural laws don't necessarily have to be fine-tuned for it.

Logical Proof:

L = life, B = God can violate (break) natural laws, N = natural laws support life, F = natural laws are fine-tuned
# = is necessary, ^ = is possible (stupid DDO character inadequacies! ;P )

P1) L
P2) ^B > ~#N
P3) {FTA} > (^L > #F)
P4) ~#N > ~#F
+P5) {FTA} [Assumed Conditional Proof]
+P6) ^L > #F [P3, P5, Modus Ponens]
+P7) ^L [P1, Axiom M corollary]
+P8) #F [P6, P7, Modus Ponens]
+P9) ~~#F [P4, Double Negation]
+P10) #N [P8, P9, Modus Tollens]
+P11) ~~#N [P10, Double Negation]
+P12) ~^B [P2, P11, Modus Tollens]
P13) {FTA} > ~^B [P5-P12, Conditional Proof]
C) ~{FTA} v ~^B [P13, Material Implication]

Corollary Argument:

Additionally, the Fine-Tuning Argument rails against an anthropocentric ("human-centered") notion because it claims that the universe can support the emergence and existence of life, in general, and so conflicts with the [typical] religious importance of Earth and humanity.
Straw man. It doesn't say anything about the emergence of life, that's evolution.
This renders humanity seemingly less crucial to God not necessarily of "center-stage" importance to Him. Further, if it's true that God cannot violate the natural laws to create life,
lol....I like the way you're claiming the laws of nature created by God were created by God to limit God to only create life that is sustained by the laws created by God.
it's possible that God cannot violate them for other purposes, as well, such as preventing other life from emerging.
There's that emerging straw man. The fine tuning argument does not claim life "emerged", evolution does. Another revisiting of your initial straw man of the argument. Semantics aren't logic chaos, unless they are lological....lo!

Your argument in a nutshell......God doesn't exist because life in the universe relies on natural laws to exist because natural laws occurred naturally. God only exists if or when he demonstrates a violation of the laws that he himself created, which based on your reasoning, were created by God so God couldn't violate them or hasn't violated them in front of you so God never has done so and therefore cannot do so.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 10:46:36 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 9:21:30 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a logical argument that juxtaposes the aims of the Fine-Tuning Argument with the commonplace notion of a powerful God that is not limited by the laws of nature. This does not acknowledge that the FTA is sound at all or that God exists; they're just assumed for the sake of argument. In any case, the conclusion isn't terribly significant, but I believe this argument is logically sound. Please "skepticize" it, if you will! Thank you. :)

Primary Argument:

P1) Life exists.

P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.

P3) According to the Fine-Tuning Argument, it's necessary that the natural laws were fine-tuned for the existence of life to be possible.

P4) If it's not necessary for the natural laws to permit life, then it's not necessary for the natural laws to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.

C) Therefore, either the Fine-Tuning Argument is false or it's not possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life.


Premise elaborations:

P1) Obvious observation.

P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.

P3) The FTA boils down to claiming that the only reasonable explanation for the existence of life is that the natural laws of the universe were fine-tuned with the specific intention of supporting the existence of life. This is usually done from the angle that the odds are so small that the natural laws would be just right within an infinitesimally small margin, that any other alternative to "design" should be considered impossible.

P4) In other words, since it's assumed to be possible that the natural laws could have been alternately established as to not support the existence of life (i.e. not a necessity), then it follows that the natural laws don't necessarily have to be fine-tuned for it.

Logical Proof:

L = life, B = God can violate (break) natural laws, N = natural laws support life, F = natural laws are fine-tuned
# = is necessary, ^ = is possible (stupid DDO character inadequacies! ;P )

P1) L
P2) ^B > ~#N
P3) {FTA} > (^L > #F)
P4) ~#N > ~#F
+P5) {FTA} [Assumed Conditional Proof]
+P6) ^L > #F [P3, P5, Modus Ponens]
+P7) ^L [P1, Axiom M corollary]
+P8) #F [P6, P7, Modus Ponens]
+P9) ~~#F [P4, Double Negation]
+P10) #N [P8, P9, Modus Tollens]
+P11) ~~#N [P10, Double Negation]
+P12) ~^B [P2, P11, Modus Tollens]
P13) {FTA} > ~^B [P5-P12, Conditional Proof]
C) ~{FTA} v ~^B [P13, Material Implication]

Corollary Argument:

Additionally, the Fine-Tuning Argument rails against an anthropocentric ("human-centered") notion because it claims that the universe can support the emergence and existence of life, in general, and so conflicts with the [typical] religious importance of Earth and humanity. This renders humanity seemingly less crucial to God not necessarily of "center-stage" importance to Him. Further, if it's true that God cannot violate the natural laws to create life, it's possible that God cannot violate them for other purposes, as well, such as preventing other life from emerging.

Great argument :)
Only because you're logically inept. When are you posting a retraction of your deceptive use of modus ponens to argue eternalism and admit you were unethical in promoting it as a viable argument. You post enough about metaethic theories and such, when are you ever going to demonstrate you actually know how to be ethical?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 11:55:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
"P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.

P3) According to the Fine-Tuning Argument, it's necessary that the natural laws were fine-tuned for the existence of life to be possible."

According to the Fine-Tuning argument it's necessary that these natural laws were fine-tuned to support life, not just any set of laws. It's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life only in cases where the natural laws do not already permit it. Non-life supporting natural laws are only implied in THOSE cases. Of course it's not "necessary for the natural laws to permit life". If they were then any set of natural laws would make life possible and the theist would have a much harder time arguing that God is required to explain why life is possible in the universe.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 6:24:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
This is philosophy reduced to mere reasoning.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 6:19:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
In other words, to claim that it's possible for God to violate the natural laws to permit life implies that not all natural laws permit life to exist on their own, which only contradicts the claim that all sets of natural laws are fine-tuned for life (since there are scenarios in which the natural laws don't permit life to existence in the first place). But of course, no theist is making that assertion. No theist is saying that wherever there are natural laws there is the possibility for life. They are, on the contrary, making the exact opposite claim.

So someone who thinks the natural laws are fine-tuned to support life should reject the claim that God can violate the laws to permit life, not because God is unable to intervene, but because the laws already permit life and nothing is to be won from violating them.