Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fine Tuning of the Initial Conditions

stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:50:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As you may have seen in some of the other topic discussions I created I am only interested in seeing others opinions, not getting into large debates on forums. For this post I want to see the ways people respond to the argument.

Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe.

How do most atheist respond to this argument? Is the most prominent response the multivers theory? Any input is welcomed and appreciated. Thank you very much
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:08:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:50:15 AM, stubs wrote:
As you may have seen in some of the other topic discussions I created I am only interested in seeing others opinions, not getting into large debates on forums. For this post I want to see the ways people respond to the argument.

Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe.

How do most atheist respond to this argument? Is the most prominent response the multivers theory? Any input is welcomed and appreciated. Thank you very much

The universe exists (given).
Ergo the universe must exist in some given configuration.
This particular configuraiton is no more special than any other.

Other responses:
1. All science is incomplete. To talk about "initial conditions" is presumptive and inaccurate; We can't rule out the existence of "prior" conditions which affected what we now consider to be "initial" conditions.
2. In light of #2 we really can't say why the initial conditions are what they are as opposed to something else. This gap in our knowledge (which theists keep trying to shoehorn god into) prevents us from accurately discussing the "odds" of those conditions being what they are.

Consider:
I pull out a deck of cards facedown and ask you to pick a card at random. You pick the Ace of Spades. I then ask you the odds of picking that particular card. You say 1 in 52. I flip the deck over - they're all Ace of Spades.

You can presume whatever you want about these "initial conditions" but only through such presumption can you make a case for this particular configuration of the universe of being so unlikely as to make the liklihood of God more probable.

Atheists simply refuse to make the same presumptions as theists. It doesn't require a degree in cosmology or access to some secret knowledge.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:16:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:08:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

The universe exists (given).
Ergo the universe must exist in some given configuration.
This particular configuraiton is no more special than any other.

Other responses:
1. All science is incomplete. To talk about "initial conditions" is presumptive and inaccurate; We can't rule out the existence of "prior" conditions which affected what we now consider to be "initial" conditions.
2. In light of #2 we really can't say why the initial conditions are what they are as opposed to something else. This gap in our knowledge (which theists keep trying to shoehorn god into) prevents us from accurately discussing the "odds" of those conditions being what they are.

Consider:
I pull out a deck of cards facedown and ask you to pick a card at random. You pick the Ace of Spades. I then ask you the odds of picking that particular card. You say 1 in 52. I flip the deck over - they're all Ace of Spades.

You can presume whatever you want about these "initial conditions" but only through such presumption can you make a case for this particular configuration of the universe of being so unlikely as to make the liklihood of God more probable.

Atheists simply refuse to make the same presumptions as theists. It doesn't require a degree in cosmology or access to some secret knowledge.

Thank you for the response. When you say things like science is incomplete and we can't rule out the possibility existing prior conditions and saying it is a gap in our scientific knowledge, wouldn't that be an agnostic response? Just saying, "we really don't know, but you can't rule these things out."

Thanks again for your response.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:26:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:16:43 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:08:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

The universe exists (given).
Ergo the universe must exist in some given configuration.
This particular configuraiton is no more special than any other.

Other responses:
1. All science is incomplete. To talk about "initial conditions" is presumptive and inaccurate; We can't rule out the existence of "prior" conditions which affected what we now consider to be "initial" conditions.
2. In light of #2 we really can't say why the initial conditions are what they are as opposed to something else. This gap in our knowledge (which theists keep trying to shoehorn god into) prevents us from accurately discussing the "odds" of those conditions being what they are.

Consider:
I pull out a deck of cards facedown and ask you to pick a card at random. You pick the Ace of Spades. I then ask you the odds of picking that particular card. You say 1 in 52. I flip the deck over - they're all Ace of Spades.

You can presume whatever you want about these "initial conditions" but only through such presumption can you make a case for this particular configuration of the universe of being so unlikely as to make the liklihood of God more probable.

Atheists simply refuse to make the same presumptions as theists. It doesn't require a degree in cosmology or access to some secret knowledge.

Thank you for the response. When you say things like science is incomplete and we can't rule out the possibility existing prior conditions and saying it is a gap in our scientific knowledge, wouldn't that be an agnostic response? Just saying, "we really don't know, but you can't rule these things out."

I don't think so. If it's the case then EVERY would be an agnostic. That science is incomplete is an objective fact.


Thanks again for your response.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:30:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:16:43 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:08:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

The universe exists (given).
Ergo the universe must exist in some given configuration.
This particular configuraiton is no more special than any other.

Other responses:
1. All science is incomplete. To talk about "initial conditions" is presumptive and inaccurate; We can't rule out the existence of "prior" conditions which affected what we now consider to be "initial" conditions.
2. In light of #2 we really can't say why the initial conditions are what they are as opposed to something else. This gap in our knowledge (which theists keep trying to shoehorn god into) prevents us from accurately discussing the "odds" of those conditions being what they are.

Consider:
I pull out a deck of cards facedown and ask you to pick a card at random. You pick the Ace of Spades. I then ask you the odds of picking that particular card. You say 1 in 52. I flip the deck over - they're all Ace of Spades.

You can presume whatever you want about these "initial conditions" but only through such presumption can you make a case for this particular configuration of the universe of being so unlikely as to make the liklihood of God more probable.

Atheists simply refuse to make the same presumptions as theists. It doesn't require a degree in cosmology or access to some secret knowledge.

Thank you for the response. When you say things like science is incomplete and we can't rule out the possibility existing prior conditions and saying it is a gap in our scientific knowledge, wouldn't that be an agnostic response? Just saying, "we really don't know, but you can't rule these things out."

Thanks again for your response.

That's a discussion "On Certainty", I think. All future events and logic itself would be questionable: the only certainties are prescriptive through private language.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:30:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:26:16 AM, drafterman wrote:


I don't think so. If it's the case then EVERY would be an agnostic. That science is incomplete is an objective fact.


Yeah that would make more people, if not everyone, agnostic. I'm just saying would that be the best definition of your response? Saying we just don't know yet sounds a lot more like agnosticism than atheism.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:32:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:30:48 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:26:16 AM, drafterman wrote:


I don't think so. If it's the case then EVERY would be an agnostic. That science is incomplete is an objective fact.


Yeah that would make more people, if not everyone, agnostic. I'm just saying would that be the best definition of your response? Saying we just don't know yet sounds a lot more like agnosticism than atheism.

1. agnosticism doesn't exist in contrast to atheism. It's just it's own descriptor for people.
2. The ignorance to which I'm admitting is in regards to science, not god.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:21:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally think it is absurd to think we came from a 1 and billion chance(if not higher). Look no further then how everything functions so perfectly. Ponder on your brain, body, ecosystem, animals, and everything around you. Any intelligent person will come to at least question the Big Bang.

To rely on an always changing scientific theory is hard to fathom. Science will always grow and evolve, what we are taught now will be added unto in the future. Although science can't prove the universe was created, it can not disprove it either.

What are we left to do then? I say think things through and use examples around us. Have you ever seen anything just sprout up so beautiful as the universe and all its functioning parts? No, we have not! However, we save seen magnificent things created by people.

Ask yourself, "Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?" The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
Russel M. Nelson Apostle of the Lord
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:26:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just the last paragraph is from Russel M. Nelson.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:29:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:21:51 PM, tyler90az wrote:
I personally think it is absurd to think we came from a 1 and billion chance(if not higher). Look no further then how everything functions so perfectly. Ponder on your brain, body, ecosystem, animals, and everything around you. Any intelligent person will come to at least question the Big Bang.

To rely on an always changing scientific theory is hard to fathom. Science will always grow and evolve, what we are taught now will be added unto in the future. Although science can't prove the universe was created, it can not disprove it either.

You do realize that fine tuning arguments try to use science as justification, right? If you throw out science then you throw out the fine tuning argument.


What are we left to do then? I say think things through and use examples around us. Have you ever seen anything just sprout up so beautiful as the universe and all its functioning parts? No, we have not! However, we save seen magnificent things created by people.


Ask yourself, "Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?" The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
Russel M. Nelson Apostle of the Lord
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:36:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:29:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:21:51 PM, tyler90az wrote:
I personally think it is absurd to think we came from a 1 and billion chance(if not higher). Look no further then how everything functions so perfectly. Ponder on your brain, body, ecosystem, animals, and everything around you. Any intelligent person will come to at least question the Big Bang.

To rely on an always changing scientific theory is hard to fathom. Science will always grow and evolve, what we are taught now will be added unto in the future. Although science can't prove the universe was created, it can not disprove it either.

You do realize that fine tuning arguments try to use science as justification, right? If you throw out science then you throw out the fine tuning argument.


What are we left to do then? I say think things through and use examples around us. Have you ever seen anything just sprout up so beautiful as the universe and all its functioning parts? No, we have not! However, we save seen magnificent things created by people.


Ask yourself, "Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?" The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
Russel M. Nelson Apostle of the Lord

I am not throwing out science, just relying on it like a God. The fact that people rely so heavily on science that is always changing is perplexing.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:36:39 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:29:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:21:51 PM, tyler90az wrote:
I personally think it is absurd to think we came from a 1 and billion chance(if not higher). Look no further then how everything functions perfectly. Ponder on your brain, body, ecosystem, animals, and everything around you. Any intelligent person will come to at least question the Big Bang.

To rely on an always changing scientific theory is hard to fathom. Science will always grow and evolve, what we are taught now will be added unto in the future. Although science can't prove the universe was created, it can not disprove it either.

You do realize that fine tuning arguments try to use science as justification, right? If you throw out science then you throw out the fine tuning argument.


What are we left to do then? I say think things through and use examples around us. Have you ever seen anything just sprout up so beautiful as the universe and all its functioning parts? No, we have not! However, we save seen magnificent things created by people.


Ask yourself, "Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?" The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
Russel M. Nelson Apostle of the Lord

I am not throwing out science, just relying on it like a God. The fact that people rely so heavily on science that is always changing is perplexing.

The fine tuning argument relies on science.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:45:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:39:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:36:39 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:29:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:21:51 PM, tyler90az wrote:
I personally think it is absurd to think we came from a 1 and billion chance(if not higher). Look no further then how everything functions perfectly. Ponder on your brain, body, ecosystem, animals, and everything around you. Any intelligent person will come to at least question the Big Bang.

To rely on an always changing scientific theory is hard to fathom. Science will always grow and evolve, what we are taught now will be added unto in the future. Although science can't prove the universe was created, it can not disprove it either.

You do realize that fine tuning arguments try to use science as justification, right? If you throw out science then you throw out the fine tuning argument.


What are we left to do then? I say think things through and use examples around us. Have you ever seen anything just sprout up so beautiful as the universe and all its functioning parts? No, we have not! However, we save seen magnificent things created by people.


Ask yourself, "Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?" The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
Russel M. Nelson Apostle of the Lord

I am not throwing out science, just relying on it like a God. The fact that people rely so heavily on science that is always changing is perplexing.



The fine tuning argument relies on science.

Yes, and that theory has the possibility to change, evolve or be disproved in the future. My God is just that a God, not a scientific theory. In the end everything is Science. God is science, science is God. However, we are not at a point of perfect science. If science was perfect(discovered everything) it would prove God. How I know that were not at a perfect science? For the reasons I listed above, it is always changing.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:49:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:46:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Tyler: I'm confused. Are you pro-fine-tuning or not?

I am pro on thinking about what is around us and understanding that it shows a creator.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:51:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:49:36 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:46:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Tyler: I'm confused. Are you pro-fine-tuning or not?

I am pro on thinking about what is around us and understanding that it shows a creator.

That's not what I asked.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:54:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:51:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:49:36 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:46:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Tyler: I'm confused. Are you pro-fine-tuning or not?

I am pro on thinking about what is around us and understanding that it shows a creator.

That's not what I asked.

Have not really read on it. That i why I said, "I am pro on thinking about what is around us and understanding that it shows a creator."
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:55:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What about you?
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 4:00:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:21:51 PM, tyler90az wrote:
I personally think it is absurd to think we came from a 1 and billion chance(if not higher). Look no further then how everything functions so perfectly. Ponder on your brain, body, ecosystem, animals, and everything around you. Any intelligent person will come to at least question the Big Bang.

To rely on an always changing scientific theory is hard to fathom. Science will always grow and evolve, what we are taught now will be added unto in the future. Although science can't prove the universe was created, it can not disprove it either.

What are we left to do then? I say think things through and use examples around us. Have you ever seen anything just sprout up so beautiful as the universe and all its functioning parts? No, we have not! However, we save seen magnificent things created by people.


Ask yourself, "Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?" The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
Russel M. Nelson Apostle of the Lord

"I personally think it is absurd to think we came from a 1 and billion chance(if not higher)."

I think it's absurd to think we couldn't have. If I deal you a hand of 13 cards, the odds of you getting that exact hand are under 1 and 635,000,000,000. Does that mean that every time someone gets dealt a 13 hard hand, the deck was stacked according to you? Also, if you enter a waiting room, the odds of you being there with that exact group of people at that exact time is astronomical, does that mean you believe someone must determined who was going to be in that room beforehand because the odds are so high against? It's your proposition that is absurd.

"Look no further then how everything functions so perfectly. Ponder on your brain, body, ecosystem, animals, and everything around you. Any intelligent person will come to at least question the Big Bang."

You can question it, but the evidence supports it.

"What are we left to do then? I say think things through and use examples around us. Have you ever seen anything just sprout up so beautiful as the universe and all its functioning parts? No, we have not! However, we save seen magnificent things created by people."

So because minds can produce magnificent things, that means all magnificent things, must be created by a mind? This is clearly fallacious.

"Ask yourself, "Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?" The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
Russel M. Nelson Apostle of the Lord"

This assumes there are only two options:

1. 100% random chaos
2. Intelligent Design

We know from looking at nature that non intelligence can produce order (Gravity is not intelligent, yet it can produce magnificent galaxies). Non-intelligence is more powerful than intelligence if you look at the universe as well. If the universe required a cause, wouldn't it be the most powerful type of cause?
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 4:35:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it's absurd to think we couldn't have. If I deal you a hand of 13 cards, the odds of you getting that exact hand are under 1 and 635,000,000,000. Does that mean that every time someone gets dealt a 13 hard hand, the deck was stacked according to you? Also, if you enter a waiting room, the odds of you being there with that exact group of people at that exact time is astronomical, does that mean you believe someone must determined who was going to be in that room beforehand because the odds are so high against? It's your proposition that is absurd.

The situations you described are not even close to as complex as the universe. Argument fail, fail Argument.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 4:37:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 4:35:55 PM, tyler90az wrote:
I think it's absurd to think we couldn't have. If I deal you a hand of 13 cards, the odds of you getting that exact hand are under 1 and 635,000,000,000. Does that mean that every time someone gets dealt a 13 hard hand, the deck was stacked according to you? Also, if you enter a waiting room, the odds of you being there with that exact group of people at that exact time is astronomical, does that mean you believe someone must determined who was going to be in that room beforehand because the odds are so high against? It's your proposition that is absurd.

The situations you described are not even close to as complex as the universe. Argument fail, fail Argument.

It's not a fail, because you used the analogy of 1 and a billion, and I was stating that things less probable than that happen all the time. Also, it doesn't matter how complex the universe is, that doesn't indicate intelligence. Therefore, you fail.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 4:40:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So because minds can produce magnificent things, that means all magnificent things, must be created by a mind? This is clearly fallacious.

I never said that.... What I said was look at examples around us and that was an example. On the other hand I have never seen anything as complex as the universe just pop up.

"Ask yourself, "Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?" The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
Russel M. Nelson Apostle of the Lord"

This assumes there are only two options:

1. 100% random chaos
2. Intelligent Design

How is what happened, according to you, not chaos?

We know from looking at nature that non intelligence can produce order (Gravity is not intelligent, yet it can produce magnificent galaxies). Non-intelligence is more powerful than intelligence if you look at the universe as well. If the universe required a cause, wouldn't it be the most powerful type of cause?

You are correct! What is the most powerful cause possible? Well, a God that s out of this realm.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 4:41:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 4:37:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/6/2012 4:35:55 PM, tyler90az wrote:
I think it's absurd to think we couldn't have. If I deal you a hand of 13 cards, the odds of you getting that exact hand are under 1 and 635,000,000,000. Does that mean that every time someone gets dealt a 13 hard hand, the deck was stacked according to you? Also, if you enter a waiting room, the odds of you being there with that exact group of people at that exact time is astronomical, does that mean you believe someone must determined who was going to be in that room beforehand because the odds are so high against? It's your proposition that is absurd.

The situations you described are not even close to as complex as the universe. Argument fail, fail Argument.

It's not a fail, because you used the analogy of 1 and a billion, and I was stating that things less probable than that happen all the time. Also, it doesn't matter how complex the universe is, that doesn't indicate intelligence. Therefore, you fail.

The reason I speak of how complex the universe is, because it makes it less likely that it could occur.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 5:04:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:50:15 AM, stubs wrote:
As you may have seen in some of the other topic discussions I created I am only interested in seeing others opinions, not getting into large debates on forums. For this post I want to see the ways people respond to the argument.

Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe.

How do most atheist respond to this argument? Is the most prominent response the multivers theory? Any input is welcomed and appreciated. Thank you very much

It's a matter of presupposing goals.

Let's say the universe starts out a little differently and ends up as a particular arrangement of black holes. It takes EXACT fine-tuning to reach this arrangement and any change whatsoever makes the arrangement as impossible as life would be under different initial conditions.

Would this be proof that God exists? For all we know, God is more interested in black holes than sentient life (the universe's proportions of them suggest as much).

The only way to show this ISN'T proof of God is to PRESUPPOSE God intended for the universe to end up with sentient life.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 5:22:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 5:04:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:50:15 AM, stubs wrote:
As you may have seen in some of the other topic discussions I created I am only interested in seeing others opinions, not getting into large debates on forums. For this post I want to see the ways people respond to the argument.

Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe.

How do most atheist respond to this argument? Is the most prominent response the multivers theory? Any input is welcomed and appreciated. Thank you very much

It's a matter of presupposing goals.

Let's say the universe starts out a little differently and ends up as a particular arrangement of black holes. It takes EXACT fine-tuning to reach this arrangement and any change whatsoever makes the arrangement as impossible as life would be under different initial conditions.

Would this be proof that God exists? For all we know, God is more interested in black holes than sentient life (the universe's proportions of them suggest as much).

The only way to show this ISN'T proof of God is to PRESUPPOSE God intended for the universe to end up with sentient life.

I disagree... If you remove one black hole it would have a domino effect on the entire universe. Also just because there are many black holes, doesn't mean God, did not intend the universe to be that way.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 6:19:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 4:00:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

We know from looking at nature that non intelligence can produce order (Gravity is not intelligent, yet it can produce magnificent galaxies). Non-intelligence is more powerful than intelligence if you look at the universe as well. If the universe required a cause, wouldn't it be the most powerful type of cause?

The thing about the gravity argument is that gravity itself is finely tuned. In all honesty I do not have the exact number cause I don't have the books with me right now. However if the gravity of the earth was any stronger or weaker the planets and stars necessary for life would not be able to form.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 6:21:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:54:02 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:51:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:49:36 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/6/2012 2:46:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Tyler: I'm confused. Are you pro-fine-tuning or not?

I am pro on thinking about what is around us and understanding that it shows a creator.

That's not what I asked.

Have not really read on it. That i why I said, "I am pro on thinking about what is around us and understanding that it shows a creator."

If you haven't read on it then what is the basis for your objection to criticism?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 7:23:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 5:22:45 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/6/2012 5:04:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:50:15 AM, stubs wrote:
As you may have seen in some of the other topic discussions I created I am only interested in seeing others opinions, not getting into large debates on forums. For this post I want to see the ways people respond to the argument.

Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe.

How do most atheist respond to this argument? Is the most prominent response the multivers theory? Any input is welcomed and appreciated. Thank you very much

It's a matter of presupposing goals.

Let's say the universe starts out a little differently and ends up as a particular arrangement of black holes. It takes EXACT fine-tuning to reach this arrangement and any change whatsoever makes the arrangement as impossible as life would be under different initial conditions.

Would this be proof that God exists? For all we know, God is more interested in black holes than sentient life (the universe's proportions of them suggest as much).

The only way to show this ISN'T proof of God is to PRESUPPOSE God intended for the universe to end up with sentient life.

I disagree... If you remove one black hole it would have a domino effect on the entire universe. Also just because there are many black holes, doesn't mean God, did not intend the universe to be that way.

Wait, black holes are being created all the time, and we know they can die. how do you know that removing a black hole would have a domino effect on the entire universe? We manipulate and destroy objects around us, but they never create a domino effect on our planet.
devout_skeptic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 7:50:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:50:15 AM, stubs wrote:
As you may have seen in some of the other topic discussions I created I am only interested in seeing others opinions, not getting into large debates on forums. For this post I want to see the ways people respond to the argument.

Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe.

How do most atheist respond to this argument? Is the most prominent response the multivers theory? Any input is welcomed and appreciated. Thank you very much

As an Atheist I don't see how fine tuning is an argument for God. This is the only universe we know and it is the way it is so we are here to ask why it is this way but the real question is how is it this way? Regardless of how, I just don't see how the fine tuning argument proves or even suggests God. We just don't know how things are the way they are yet. Multiverse theories (more like hypothesis than scientific theories) like String M-theory, Inflation Theory, or Lee Smolins Cosmological Natural Selection Theory are all being explored. Even some sort of a God is a possible explanation but I think the other explanations are more probable give the track record for God as an explanation so far. How the universe came to be the way it is may have an explanation no one has thought of yet. We may never know.
Peace,
Doug
devout_skeptic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 8:17:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 2:21:51 PM, tyler90az wrote:
I personally think it is absurd to think we came from a 1 and billion chance(if not higher). Look no further then how everything functions so perfectly. Ponder on your brain, body, ecosystem, animals, and everything around you. Any intelligent person will come to at least question the Big Bang.

We can observe things with a one in a billion chance or even higher happening all the time. Just because we don't know how something comes to be does not automatically imply God. So far God has never been found to be the cause of anything. Where as mindless purposeless natural forces have been found to be the cause of many of the things we once supposed God to have caused.


To rely on an always changing scientific theory is hard to fathom. Science will always grow and evolve, what we are taught now will be added unto in the future. Although science can't prove the universe was created, it can not disprove it either.

The tentative nature of science is exactly why it is better than religious explanation. Science is self correcting religion is not.


What are we left to do then? I say think things through and use examples around us. Have you ever seen anything just sprout up so beautiful as the universe and all its functioning parts? No, we have not! However, we save seen magnificent things created by people.


By the same token I could ask you have you ever seen God create a universe or anything for that matter? We don't know how the universe came to be the way it is but that doesn't necessarily imply God. Why would it?


Ask yourself, "Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?" The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
Russel M. Nelson Apostle of the Lord
Peace,
Doug