Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22

# The fine-tuning argument

 Posts: 1,168 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 5:45:19 PMPosted: 6 years agoI have heard this argument while debating with three separate people who have defended it so I wll present it here. The fine-tuning argument is the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life.1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.)3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 )5. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons. (Leslie, 1988, p. 299.)http://www.discovery.org...(P1) The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it.(P2) Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable.(C3) Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one.(P4) The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created by a designer
 Posts: 616 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 6:06:54 PMPosted: 6 years agoThe one based on complexity is hard to argue but a solid one is based simply on purpose and intentionality.If natural beings have purpose than an intelligent mind existsnatural beings have purposetherefore an intelligent mind existsIntentionality is a feature of minds. I used this argument in my debate http://www.debate.org...I recently learned it off reading this guy named Contradiction's debates. He knows a lot about philosophy.
 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 6:21:57 PMPosted: 6 years ago*(especially due to P2, just because different constants are conceivable, doesn't mean they are possible in reality).
 Posts: 1,168 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 7:47:47 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 6:06:54 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:The one based on complexity is hard to argue but a solid one is based simply on purpose and intentionality.If natural beings have purpose than an intelligent mind existsnatural beings have purposetherefore an intelligent mind existsIntentionality is a feature of minds. I used this argument in my debate http://www.debate.org...I recently learned it off reading this guy named Contradiction's debates. He knows a lot about philosophy.What makes you think we have purpose?
 Posts: 733 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 8:00:46 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 5:45:19 PM, Dan4reason wrote:I have heard this argument while debating with three separate people who have defended it so I wll present it here. The fine-tuning argument is the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life.1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.)3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 )5. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons. (Leslie, 1988, p. 299.)http://www.discovery.org...(P1) The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it.(P2) Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable.(C3) Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one.(P4) The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created by a designerThis designer was apparantely incompetent enough to ensure that 99.99999999999999% of the universe was actually ihabitable to us in any way. So good job with that.What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
 Posts: 5,044 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 9:26:11 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 6:06:54 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:The one based on complexity is hard to argue but a solid one is based simply on purpose and intentionality.If natural beings have purpose than an intelligent mind existsnatural beings have purposetherefore an intelligent mind existsI completely agree. An intelligent mind exists, that that mind is us. We create a purpose for ourselves, we create a purpose for future generations, therefore we, as intelligent minds, exist.
 Posts: 616 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 9:33:03 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 9:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:I completely agree. An intelligent mind exists, that that mind is us. We create a purpose for ourselves, we create a purpose for future generations, therefore we, as intelligent minds, exist.That's not what I mean. I mean all natural things in the natural world have a purpose. The purpose of the stomach for example is mainly digestion. Intentionality (goals,purpose etc) is a feature of minds. Thus, if telelogy exists than an intelligent mind exists, God.
 Posts: 1,168 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 10:11:10 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 9:33:03 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:I completely agree. An intelligent mind exists, that that mind is us. We create a purpose for ourselves, we create a purpose for future generations, therefore we, as intelligent minds, exist.That's not what I mean. I mean all natural things in the natural world have a purpose. The purpose of the stomach for example is mainly digestion. Intentionality (goals,purpose etc) is a feature of minds. Thus, if telelogy exists than an intelligent mind exists, God.I heard that natural selection can actually create something with a function without any guiding from a creator. Is this true?
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 10:14:34 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 9:33:03 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:I completely agree. An intelligent mind exists, that that mind is us. We create a purpose for ourselves, we create a purpose for future generations, therefore we, as intelligent minds, exist.That's not what I mean. I mean all natural things in the natural world have a purpose. The purpose of the stomach for example is mainly digestion. Intentionality (goals,purpose etc) is a feature of minds. Thus, if telelogy exists than an intelligent mind exists, God.All things in the natural world have "purpose" eh, that is to say they do what they do because some one determined it to be that way.Ok two words.....ebola virus. So what is the "purpose" of the ebola virus ? well among other things it has been know to kill black african children."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: 616 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 10:24:15 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 10:11:10 PM, Dan4reason wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:33:03 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:I completely agree. An intelligent mind exists, that that mind is us. We create a purpose for ourselves, we create a purpose for future generations, therefore we, as intelligent minds, exist.That's not what I mean. I mean all natural things in the natural world have a purpose. The purpose of the stomach for example is mainly digestion. Intentionality (goals,purpose etc) is a feature of minds. Thus, if telelogy exists than an intelligent mind exists, God.I heard that natural selection can actually create something with a function without any guiding from a creator. Is this true?It can't be because how could meaninglessness give rise to meaning? How could something give something which it doesn't have? if there is a genuine teleology (purpose in natural beings) then there must be intentionality which is a product of minds (intelligence). the process of evolution begins from unintelligence to intelligence which is fallacious.
 Posts: 616 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 10:25:46 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 10:14:34 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:33:03 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:I completely agree. An intelligent mind exists, that that mind is us. We create a purpose for ourselves, we create a purpose for future generations, therefore we, as intelligent minds, exist.That's not what I mean. I mean all natural things in the natural world have a purpose. The purpose of the stomach for example is mainly digestion. Intentionality (goals,purpose etc) is a feature of minds. Thus, if telelogy exists than an intelligent mind exists, God.All things in the natural world have "purpose" eh, that is to say they do what they do because some one determined it to be that way.Ok two words.....ebola virus. So what is the "purpose" of the ebola virus ? well among other things it has been know to kill black african children.if it has a purpose then there is teleology whether negative or positive, this actually only further proves the case.
 Posts: 8,293 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 10:54:05 PMPosted: 6 years agoThe problem with this argument is that this universe with these specific set of rules was designed to work for us (carbon based, aerobic respirators). However, this doesn't mean that if we tweaked some of these constants that other life (life we can't comprehend) wouldn't be possible and just as successful as we've been.It's an interesting thought.While the universe works for our definition of life; there could be thousands of other incomprehensible forms of life that could be created in a totally different universe.No one normal accomplished anything meaningful in this world.
 Posts: 1,168 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2012 11:05:02 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 10:24:15 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:At 5/15/2012 10:11:10 PM, Dan4reason wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:33:03 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:I completely agree. An intelligent mind exists, that that mind is us. We create a purpose for ourselves, we create a purpose for future generations, therefore we, as intelligent minds, exist.That's not what I mean. I mean all natural things in the natural world have a purpose. The purpose of the stomach for example is mainly digestion. Intentionality (goals,purpose etc) is a feature of minds. Thus, if telelogy exists than an intelligent mind exists, God.I heard that natural selection can actually create something with a function without any guiding from a creator. Is this true?It can't be because how could meaninglessness give rise to meaning? How could something give something which it doesn't have? if there is a genuine teleology (purpose in natural beings) then there must be intentionality which is a product of minds (intelligence). the process of evolution begins from unintelligence to intelligence which is fallacious.So basically what you are saying is that natural selection and mutations cannot create organs that have a beneficial function?
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2012 12:29:07 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 10:24:15 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:It can't be because how could meaninglessness give rise to meaning?Who even claims meaninglessness to exist? Meaninglessness is another word for contradiction and no one is claiming a contradiction exists, let alone give rise to anything.How could something give something which it doesn't have?If there is 1 apple by itself and then another apple by itself they are singular apples; but if they are put together, then they are 2 apples. Alone they are singular but together they are plural: neither of them have plurality yet together they have it thus giving something which they do not have!if there is a genuine teleology (purpose in natural beings) then there must be intentionality which is a product of minds (intelligence).The "purpose" you speak of here is akin to "intentionality":1. a : something set up as an object or end to be attained : intention -MWthe process of evolution begins from unintelligence to intelligence which is fallacious.I have shown how this is not so and you have NOT shown how this is so.*****************************************At 5/15/2012 10:54:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:While the universe works for our definition of life; there could be thousands of other incomprehensible forms of life that could be created in a totally different universe.Really? The Universe "works" for life? Is that why as far as we know 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the Universe has not life?*****************************************WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
 Posts: 5,044 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2012 2:05:28 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 9:33:03 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:I completely agree. An intelligent mind exists, that that mind is us. We create a purpose for ourselves, we create a purpose for future generations, therefore we, as intelligent minds, exist.That's not what I mean. I mean all natural things in the natural world have a purpose. The purpose of the stomach for example is mainly digestion. Intentionality (goals,purpose etc) is a feature of minds. Thus, if telelogy exists than an intelligent mind exists, God.If thats not what you meant, then clearly there is a conceivable difference between Purpose that i was speaking of, and the purpose that you are talking about.So what you are talking about is a different type of purpose. We can recognize purpose given to things ourselves, because they are fundementally different from the inherent quality and purpose of things of nature. You are comparing two things that have a different type of purpose and conflating the two.What you are talking about is Inherent purpose, versus purpose applied by intelligent beings, by humans. They are fundementally different.And thats why your argument fails.
 Posts: 5,044 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2012 2:12:56 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 5/15/2012 10:24:15 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:At 5/15/2012 10:11:10 PM, Dan4reason wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:33:03 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:At 5/15/2012 9:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:I completely agree. An intelligent mind exists, that that mind is us. We create a purpose for ourselves, we create a purpose for future generations, therefore we, as intelligent minds, exist.That's not what I mean. I mean all natural things in the natural world have a purpose. The purpose of the stomach for example is mainly digestion. Intentionality (goals,purpose etc) is a feature of minds. Thus, if telelogy exists than an intelligent mind exists, God.I heard that natural selection can actually create something with a function without any guiding from a creator. Is this true?It can't be because how could meaninglessness give rise to meaning?What do you mean by "Meaninglessness"?How could something give something which it doesn't have?Easy.Complexity over time. How could molecules, which are not arranged in complex structures, give rise to complex structures?if there is a genuine teleology (purpose in natural beings) then there must be intentionality which is a product of minds (intelligence).Really. How so? Why does there necessarily have to be intentionality? When i brought up the example of intentionality, of humans producing meaning and purpose, you said you werent talking about that, which means that you put a distinction between the purpose and meaning that humans create, and the purpose and meaning that is inherent of objects of nature.So please, explain why this is necessariy so. Why does there necessarily have to be intentionality?the process of evolution begins from unintelligence to intelligence which is fallacious.How is this fallacious?