Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

The fine-tuning argument

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 5:45:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
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 designer
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 6:06:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
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 exists
natural beings have purpose
therefore an intelligent mind exists

Intentionality 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.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 6:18:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 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 designer

It's not a very good argument. I mean, if I deal you a hand in bridge, the odds that you would have gotten that exact hand are 1 in 635,000,000,000. The problem is, every hand you get the odds will be the same, and we don't ask "why did I get this hand, and not another one?", so I question the logic behind C3 (especially due to P2, just because different constants are conceivable, doesn't mean they are.).

Anyway, to expand on this, imagine a leaf falling from a tree and landing in spot A. The wind had to be in just the right conditions caused by specific events which occurred before, the leaf had to have just the right weight, gravity had to have that exact strength at that place and time, and the ground had to be spaced out just the right amount from the tree for it to fall the way it did and land in spot A. The chances of that exact same process repeating again, is next to impossible. Do we ask, "why didn't the leaf land 2 inches to the left?". It seems this theistic line of thinking (twisting the implications of probability), leads to absurdities.

Once more, us as humans have an experiment with a sample size of 1. From that we have no information about the distribution of parameters for the universe. Thus, You can't logically deduce anything about how unlikely our universe is from this.

The argument also implies a false dichotomy:

(i) Intelligence
(ii) 100% randomness

Why not a non-100% random, non-intelligent, but complex and intricate force?

The fine-tuning argument is not compelling in the slightest.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 7:47:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 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 exists
natural beings have purpose
therefore an intelligent mind exists

Intentionality 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?
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 8:00:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 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 designer

This 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?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 9:26:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 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 exists
natural beings have purpose
therefore an intelligent mind exists


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.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 9:33:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
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.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 10:11:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
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?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 10:14:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
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.
"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
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 10:24:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
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.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 10:25:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 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.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 10:54:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The 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.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 11:05:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 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?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 12:29:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 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 -MW

the 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.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 2:05:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
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.

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.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 2:12:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 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?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 1:23:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 6:18:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 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 designer

It's not a very good argument. I mean, if I deal you a hand in bridge, the odds that you would have gotten that exact hand are 1 in 635,000,000,000. The problem is, every hand you get the odds will be the same, and we don't ask "why did I get this hand, and not another one?", so I question the logic behind C3 (especially due to P2, just because different constants are conceivable, doesn't mean they are.).

Anyway, to expand on this, imagine a leaf falling from a tree and landing in spot A. The wind had to be in just the right conditions caused by specific events which occurred before, the leaf had to have just the right weight, gravity had to have that exact strength at that place and time, and the ground had to be spaced out just the right amount from the tree for it to fall the way it did and land in spot A. The chances of that exact same process repeating again, is next to impossible. Do we ask, "why didn't the leaf land 2 inches to the left?". It seems this theistic line of thinking (twisting the implications of probability), leads to absurdities.

Once more, us as humans have an experiment with a sample size of 1. From that we have no information about the distribution of parameters for the universe. Thus, You can't logically deduce anything about how unlikely our universe is from this.

The argument also implies a false dichotomy:

(i) Intelligence
(ii) 100% randomness

Why not a non-100% random, non-intelligent, but complex and intricate force?

The fine-tuning argument is not compelling in the slightest.

The problem with the card hand argument is what if I get a hand of four cards that happen to have four kings? With your reasoning I might argue that this is not unlikely at all because every hand is unlikely. However we know that a hand of four kings is suspiciously unlikely.

Also even if the cause of the universe is a natural force, then what is the probability that this force was set up so that it would create a universe just right for life?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 1:31:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 1:23:51 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/15/2012 6:18:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 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 designer

It's not a very good argument. I mean, if I deal you a hand in bridge, the odds that you would have gotten that exact hand are 1 in 635,000,000,000. The problem is, every hand you get the odds will be the same, and we don't ask "why did I get this hand, and not another one?", so I question the logic behind C3 (especially due to P2, just because different constants are conceivable, doesn't mean they are.).

Anyway, to expand on this, imagine a leaf falling from a tree and landing in spot A. The wind had to be in just the right conditions caused by specific events which occurred before, the leaf had to have just the right weight, gravity had to have that exact strength at that place and time, and the ground had to be spaced out just the right amount from the tree for it to fall the way it did and land in spot A. The chances of that exact same process repeating again, is next to impossible. Do we ask, "why didn't the leaf land 2 inches to the left?". It seems this theistic line of thinking (twisting the implications of probability), leads to absurdities.

Once more, us as humans have an experiment with a sample size of 1. From that we have no information about the distribution of parameters for the universe. Thus, You can't logically deduce anything about how unlikely our universe is from this.

The argument also implies a false dichotomy:

(i) Intelligence
(ii) 100% randomness

Why not a non-100% random, non-intelligent, but complex and intricate force?

The fine-tuning argument is not compelling in the slightest.

The problem with the card hand argument is what if I get a hand of four cards that happen to have four kings? With your reasoning I might argue that this is not unlikely at all because every hand is unlikely. However we know that a hand of four kings is suspiciously unlikely.

I'm not sure how one can infer that getting a hand with 4 kings is suspicious, if it repeated, then that would be a different story. Getting a hand with 4 kings, is just as improbable as getting any combination of 4 cards anyway. I'm not really seeing your point...

Also even if the cause of the universe is a natural force, then what is the probability that this force was set up so that it would create a universe just right for life?

Wait, what do you mean by "cause of the universe"? I'm implying that the natural forces which exist within the universe, is what shaped what we see (such as gravity), and natural forces shape the biological organisms (evolution). This does not mean I concede that the universe had a cause, there are very good reasons to believe this is not the case.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 1:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 1:23:51 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/15/2012 6:18:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 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 designer

It's not a very good argument. I mean, if I deal you a hand in bridge, the odds that you would have gotten that exact hand are 1 in 635,000,000,000. The problem is, every hand you get the odds will be the same, and we don't ask "why did I get this hand, and not another one?", so I question the logic behind C3 (especially due to P2, just because different constants are conceivable, doesn't mean they are.).

Anyway, to expand on this, imagine a leaf falling from a tree and landing in spot A. The wind had to be in just the right conditions caused by specific events which occurred before, the leaf had to have just the right weight, gravity had to have that exact strength at that place and time, and the ground had to be spaced out just the right amount from the tree for it to fall the way it did and land in spot A. The chances of that exact same process repeating again, is next to impossible. Do we ask, "why didn't the leaf land 2 inches to the left?". It seems this theistic line of thinking (twisting the implications of probability), leads to absurdities.

Once more, us as humans have an experiment with a sample size of 1. From that we have no information about the distribution of parameters for the universe. Thus, You can't logically deduce anything about how unlikely our universe is from this.

The argument also implies a false dichotomy:

(i) Intelligence
(ii) 100% randomness

Why not a non-100% random, non-intelligent, but complex and intricate force?

The fine-tuning argument is not compelling in the slightest.

The problem with the card hand argument is what if I get a hand of four cards that happen to have four kings? With your reasoning I might argue that this is not unlikely at all because every hand is unlikely. However we know that a hand of four kings is suspiciously unlikely.

Also even if the cause of the universe is a natural force, then what is the probability that this force was set up so that it would create a universe just right for life?

Also, you look at it like the universe was set up just right for life, I look at the universe as something which simply allows for intelligent life.

The universe allows radiation, the universe allows bacteria, the universe allows black holes, the universe allows tsunamis, the universe allows for hurricanes, the universe allows for famine, and many other things which are not too pretty.

Would you say, "if the physical constants were changed, we wouldn't have disease, therefore, the universe was fine-tuned for disease."?

I just don't find the fine-tuning argument a convincing one for God.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 3:48:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 1:31:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I'm not sure how one can infer that getting a hand with 4 kings is suspicious, if it repeated, then that would be a different story. Getting a hand with 4 kings, is just as improbable as getting any combination of 4 cards anyway. I'm not really seeing your point...

Any random combination is unlikely, that is true. However we must ask how probably is it that this is due to chance? We know that there are millions of random combinations, and that if you pull out a few cards it must be at least one of the millions of possibility. So while it is unlikely that you will get any given combination, there is no reason this is due to chance process.

On the other hand, in the case of four kings, this is also unlikely. However there is only one way to get four kings. So while this is just as unlikely as getting any random combination of cards, it is not bound to happen and so it it unlike that it will happen by a chance process.

Wait, what do you mean by "cause of the universe"? I'm implying that the natural forces which exist within the universe, is what shaped what we see (such as gravity), and natural forces shape the biological organisms (evolution). This does not mean I concede that the universe had a cause, there are very good reasons to believe this is not the case.

Why do you think the universe doesn't have a cause?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 3:53:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 1:34:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The universe allows radiation,

Radiation is what sparks evolution and allows us to use nuclear power. It has a good side.

the universe allows bacteria,

We evolved from bacteria so I am very glad that it allows bacteria. Also many bacteria are good for us. The bad bacteria are trials but make us tougher.

the universe allows black holes,

How is that going to hurt us?

the universe allows tsunamis,

Another trial. And how do you know that tsunamis are not the result of conditions that are also vital for existence here on earth?

the universe allows for hurricanes,

See the response above.

the universe allows for famine, and many other things which are not too pretty.

See the response above.

All these arguments at best only disproves an omni-benevolent omniscient omnipotent God, not all designer God's in general.