Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23

# The Real Problem with the Fine-Tuning

 Posts: 18,870 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/10/2011 2:32:05 PMPosted: 6 years agoIt's not that it is based upon incomplete, missing, or bad math. It's the fact that fine-tuning supporters do not take it to it's logical conclusion.Consider:1. The probability of an event which is neither impossible nor certain is necessarily greater than 0, but less than 1.2. The total probability of more than one event happening is equal to the product of the individual probabilities of each event. Thus, the probability that A and B happen is equal to the probability that A happens times the probability that B happens.Given the above, the probability of multiple events happening is always necessarily less than the probability of any single one of those events happening alone.The fine-tuning argument is based upon the notion that the probability of a universe capable of supporting life arose by chance is so low, it is more reasonable to believe that such a universe was specifically designed to support life.YETOn top of all of the cited conditions for the universe being capable of supporting life, there are also a host of conditions that were necessary for you specifically for being born. Most of these involve the details regarding how and when your parents copulated. How fast, what position, stuff we probably don't want to think about. Then compound that with the fact that it also depends on your parents even deciding to have sex that day, having met in the first place, and being born themselves, which depends on their parents, your grandparents, etc.So, if we give the probability of the universe capable of supporting life in general arising by chance the value U, and the probability of a specific person arising by chance within said universe the value P, the total probability of a specific person arising by chance is U*P which, as per above, is necessarily less than U.This means that if U is sufficiently low as to cause a reasonable person to believe that the universe did not arise by chance, but rather was designed, then U*P, which is significantly less than U, should result in the same decision, and with more force.In short, if the fine-tuning argument for the universe is to hold any water, then it must be accepted that it isn't that the universe was specifically designed for life, but that it was specifically designed to produce the exact life that it did, down to each individual person.I have never seen a proponent of fine-tuning accept this necessary consequence of the fine-tuning argument. So I present it here. If you believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce life, do you also believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce you, specifically?
 Posts: 2,995 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/10/2011 2:35:59 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/10/2011 2:32:05 PM, drafterman wrote:It's not that it is based upon incomplete, missing, or bad math. It's the fact that fine-tuning supporters do not take it to it's logical conclusion.Consider:1. The probability of an event which is neither impossible nor certain is necessarily greater than 0, but less than 1.2. The total probability of more than one event happening is equal to the product of the individual probabilities of each event. Thus, the probability that A and B happen is equal to the probability that A happens times the probability that B happens.Given the above, the probability of multiple events happening is always necessarily less than the probability of any single one of those events happening alone.The fine-tuning argument is based upon the notion that the probability of a universe capable of supporting life arose by chance is so low, it is more reasonable to believe that such a universe was specifically designed to support life.YETOn top of all of the cited conditions for the universe being capable of supporting life, there are also a host of conditions that were necessary for you specifically for being born. Most of these involve the details regarding how and when your parents copulated. How fast, what position, stuff we probably don't want to think about. Then compound that with the fact that it also depends on your parents even deciding to have sex that day, having met in the first place, and being born themselves, which depends on their parents, your grandparents, etc.So, if we give the probability of the universe capable of supporting life in general arising by chance the value U, and the probability of a specific person arising by chance within said universe the value P, the total probability of a specific person arising by chance is U*P which, as per above, is necessarily less than U.This means that if U is sufficiently low as to cause a reasonable person to believe that the universe did not arise by chance, but rather was designed, then U*P, which is significantly less than U, should result in the same decision, and with more force.In short, if the fine-tuning argument for the universe is to hold any water, then it must be accepted that it isn't that the universe was specifically designed for life, but that it was specifically designed to produce the exact life that it did, down to each individual person.I have never seen a proponent of fine-tuning accept this necessary consequence of the fine-tuning argument. So I present it here. If you believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce life, do you also believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce you, specifically?The fine tuning argument has to huge flaws, one the blatant assumption that this type of life is a special outcome. If it actually predicted life it would be one thing, but to go back and say it afterwards is ridiculous. Anything that occured would have had equally bad odds, most likely. Secondly do we really know the odds, as craig exists we must hold the laws to know that changing the constants would not create life. We don't know what happens when we change the laws.DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com... It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth! If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
 Posts: 1,485 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/10/2011 7:33:38 PMPosted: 6 years agoDon't forget that the logic of the fine tuning argument would require the tunuts (tunies? tunerites?) to believe that god couldn't just accidentally be like he is unless a proto-god had made the proto-universe just exactly such as to cause god to occur in it in order to be able to create our universe.
 Posts: 300 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/10/2011 8:38:15 PMPosted: 6 years agoLol. The fine tuning argument and the design (teleological) argument attempts to show that life without a creator is IMPROBABLE not impossible.Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES! Preciousness of life. Family structure. Family values.  Disarm a liberal. Vote for values. Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
 Posts: 18,870 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/10/2011 8:41:37 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/10/2011 8:38:15 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:Lol. The fine tuning argument and the design (teleological) argument attempts to show that life without a creator is IMPROBABLE not impossible.Nothing I wrote necessitated this comment. Are you on the right thread?
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AMPosted: 6 years agoFor starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)Sure, if some one just says improbability = design then this opens them to the charge that anything that is improbable is designed such as one own birth/existence and to deny this both refutes there central premise and/or opens them up to the charge of special pleading.In a William Craig version of the fine tuning argument, I think he acknowledges that low probability in of its self is insufficient to support a design inference, but he argues its a combination of high improbability + independent pattern = design inference.I have my own objections to this argument but won't go into detail for now.William Craig on Fine Tuning starting at 6:30"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 10:37:11 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)Ridicule is the response for those that lack undertanding and lack an ability to properly reply.I would avoid it if I were you as it is an obvious sign of inability.Sure, if some one just says improbability = design then this opens them to the charge that anything that is improbable is designed such as one own birth/existence and to deny this both refutes there central premise and/or opens them up to the charge of special pleading.The birth of a person is clearly open to more than chance. Once the sperm is fired off physical determinism is in play as to wether the sperm hits home.Human Will is in play as the choice to copulate with or without the intention of procreation is in play.Chance is in play merely in the respect is that outside observers of the event have no way of knowning the choices of the other players or the physical calculations necessary to know if the sperm will strike.We record and explain these interactions with governed chance.This is different than pure chance with no will or physical determination behind it.In a William Craig version of the fine tuning argument, I think he acknowledges that low probability in of its self is insufficient to support a design inference, but he argues its a combination of high improbability + independent pattern = design inference.Correct.In the same concept of a coin toss.Though a person is flipping the coin, his personal Will is unable to choose which side of the coin will land by each choice.So chance alone does not confer design or intent.However, when you land on a living or optimal deck five times in a row by a dealer(consider the discussion and forum post by Tarzan), you clearly must infer design.The astronomical improbability and the pattern confer design.Craig points out as much in his license plate analogy.
 Posts: 1,174 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 1:43:29 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 10:37:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)Ridicule is the response for those that lack undertanding and lack an ability to properly reply.I would avoid it if I were you as it is an obvious sign of inability.Sure, if some one just says improbability = design then this opens them to the charge that anything that is improbable is designed such as one own birth/existence and to deny this both refutes there central premise and/or opens them up to the charge of special pleading.The birth of a person is clearly open to more than chance. Once the sperm is fired off physical determinism is in play as to wether the sperm hits home.Human Will is in play as the choice to copulate with or without the intention of procreation is in play.Chance is in play merely in the respect is that outside observers of the event have no way of knowning the choices of the other players or the physical calculations necessary to know if the sperm will strike.We record and explain these interactions with governed chance.This is different than pure chance with no will or physical determination behind it.In a William Craig version of the fine tuning argument, I think he acknowledges that low probability in of its self is insufficient to support a design inference, but he argues its a combination of high improbability + independent pattern = design inference.Correct.In the same concept of a coin toss.Though a person is flipping the coin, his personal Will is unable to choose which side of the coin will land by each choice.So chance alone does not confer design or intent.However, when you land on a living or optimal deck five times in a row by a dealer(consider the discussion and forum post by Tarzan), you clearly must infer design.The astronomical improbability and the pattern confer design.Craig points out as much in his license plate analogy.That's the point though Gil. You are inferring design from the optimal conditions for life. Such an inference PRESUPPOSES design. To keep with the card analogy, optimal hands presuppose an objective to the game, which is THEN explained by design (i.e. someone repeatedly dealing themselves a winning hand). But the whole question is whether there is an objective at all to the universe. While it may be easy to spot "optimal hands" in a game of bridge, this is because there is a conscious objective to the game. The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are.
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 2:37:38 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 1:43:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:At 11/11/2011 10:37:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)That's the point though Gil. You are inferring design from the optimal conditions for life. Such an inference PRESUPPOSES design. To keep with the card analogy, optimal hands presuppose an objective to the game, which is THEN explained by design (i.e. someone repeatedly dealing themselves a winning hand). But the whole question is whether there is an objective at all to the universe. While it may be easy to spot "optimal hands" in a game of bridge, this is because there is a conscious objective to the game. The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are."The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are."The argument goes along the lines because the constants need to be within a small range to be a life permitting universe, and the constants could of been different and thus are much more likely to fall outside of this range, therefore non life permitting universes are much more likely than life permitting universes.This is what makes life permitting universes "special" eh ?"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 1,174 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2011 3:23:55 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 11/11/2011 2:37:38 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 11/11/2011 1:43:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:At 11/11/2011 10:37:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)That's the point though Gil. You are inferring design from the optimal conditions for life. Such an inference PRESUPPOSES design. To keep with the card analogy, optimal hands presuppose an objective to the game, which is THEN explained by design (i.e. someone repeatedly dealing themselves a winning hand). But the whole question is whether there is an objective at all to the universe. While it may be easy to spot "optimal hands" in a game of bridge, this is because there is a conscious objective to the game. The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are."The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are."The argument goes along the lines because the constants need to be within a small range to be a life permitting universe, and the constants could of been different and thus are much more likely to fall outside of this range, therefore non life permitting universes are much more likely than life permitting universes.This is what makes life permitting universes "special" eh ?Again, though, this doesn't really address the point. Even conceding that life permitting universes are less likely than others, you still have to smuggle the notion of purpose or design through the back door. Given the improbability of LPU, all we have is an improbable event, but that does little to conclude that design was the purpose of FT, which begs the question. But even if this objection where countered, there are still objections which run to the very notion of FT. Doesn't the scale and age of the universe point to the indifference to the universe towards life? What about the dreadful track record of life on earth surviving. Doesn't this suggest a less than optimal circumstance for life to survive and flourish? Also, if the improbability is the deciding factor in assuming design, why not assume that the universe was designed to create music, or Ipads, given these are more improbable than even humans (as they are contingent upon particular human development)? Lastly, if Lee smolin is right, and the universe is optimally "designed" to produce black holes, then why not conclude that the purpose of the universe is to produce blackholes?Again, these are all the same sort of criticisms of FT, based on inferring design from the various constants.