How do atheists respond to the fine tuning argument about God?

[Bradskii]

numbers exist only in your head…they not a ‘real being’ (in the philosophical sense), like a rock, a person, a dog, etc. Philosophers would call them ‘mental beings’. Other examples would be dreams, past, future, abstractions, other mathematical entities like circles, squares, logical relations, negations and others.

You could write the a number on a piece of paper, but what you would have in reality is paper with a pattern of ink.

Could you answer my other questions?

The mathematical symbols are just the way we annotate what has happened. H2O is just a symbol for what we get when two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen. It doesn’t matter what we use to describe water but there always have been and always will be two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. You can’t ‘fine tune’ that combination and end up with water.

Similarly, you can use anything you want to symbolise two objects. But if you had one and now you have another, then you have two. ‘Two’ simply being the symbol to represent the number of objects. But you can’t have anything else. You can’t fine tune that to get something different.

So why do you expect you can fine tune any other aspect of reality? It is what it is. There are no other options.

 

[Wesrock]

The Catholic denying abstract realities (universals) and the atheist defending them. Typically, not necessarily, but typically online I see it the other way around.

 

[Russell_SA]

Can you explain how maths are abstract realities? As I understand it, maths are just adjectives to describe the experienced reality. Two apples in comparison to no apples for example. Apple number 1 is bigger than Apple number 2; the difference between communicating which apple we are talking about is the assigned number of 1 and 2 and their sizes; all adjectives. Apple A is 6oz in comparison to the weight of no apples. Maths are just a language tool for discussing the experienced reality we all experience. So to the argument of fine tuning, why do the mathematical values that describe reality indicate to you that they could be any other value than they are for this reality? Do you have a reason to believe that they could be anything other than they are? That’s like presenting the case that experiencing two apples, that’s 2 followed by an infinite amount of zeros. That’s astronomically precise. To never be anything other than two apples, not 2 times 10 to the -1billion even. It’s soo much more precise than that.

 

[Wesrock]

Can you explain how maths are abstract realities? As I understand it, maths are just adjectives to describe the experienced reality. Two apples in comparison to no apples for example. Apple number 1 is bigger than Apple number 2; the difference between communicating which apple we are talking about is the assigned number of 1 and 2 and their sizes; all adjectives. Apple A is 6oz in comparison to the weight of no apples. Maths are just a language tool for discussing the experienced reality we all experience. So to the argument of fine tuning, why do the mathematical values that describe reality indicate to you that they could be any other value than they are for this reality? Do you have a reason to believe that they could be anything other than they are? That’s like presenting the case that experiencing two apples, that’s 2 followed by an infinite amount of zeros. That’s astronomically precise. To never be anything other than two apples, not 2 times 10 to the -1billion even. It’s soo much more precise than that.

Okay, as to the latter part of your post, don’t confuse my meaning. I simply observed something interesting in the discussion between @KMC and @Bradskii. It had no bearing to me on the fine tuning argument, which I find to be insufficient and unconvincing even if all the variables could have been different.

Quite simply, if mathematical propositions/objects are true in and of themselves even if there is no mind around to think it or give it context, they are real, even though they are abstract. I hold to realism, but not to Platonic realism. That said, if Bradskii is an atheist, and my understanding of his post is true, I imagine he would have to believe these are real in a Platonic sense and not just an Aristotlean or Scholastic sense. I’ll leave it to him to confirm his position on mathematical objects as being real or not, and if you disagree you can hash it out with him. It seemed to me, from how the discussion was going, that Bradskii was affirming they are real. Commonly opposed to a Platonist view of mathematics is a Nominalist view of mathematics, which holds that mathematical objects (including mathematical relations and structures) do not exist.

It should be clear I am not talking about the symbols or representations we use to do math, only the truth of the proposition itself. Furthermore when I say they do or do not exist, I’m not questioning whether they have a physical or spiritual body or a location (which is why the question is of them being abstract realities), only if they are real in the sense of being true in reality.

Also, people do commonly differentiate between realism of universals and realism in mathematics, though both are regarding abstract realities.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Glorying in something of which we have no knowledge is a nonsensical proposition.

Just because we don’t understand something completely doesn’t make it nonsensical. For example, the phytochemicals in food work together to keep us healthy, but doctors, researchers, nutritionists, etc., are not, at the present moment, aware of all the phytochemicals in food and their reactions. That lack of present understanding doesn’t mean we should discard healthy fruits and vegetables in favor of junk food.

Not the best comparison, but we do know something about God and the universe and are learning more day-by-day, though not all and imperfectly. We don’t even know another human being perfectly. It’s impossible. Should we cast all others aside?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Can you explain how maths are abstract realities? As I understand it, maths are just adjectives to describe the experienced reality.

Someone can create systems of math that have no isomorphic relationship with reality. For the ones that do their application however useful may be have limits.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

numbers exist only in your head…they not a ‘real being’ (in the philosophical sense), like a rock, a person, a dog, etc. Philosophers would call them ‘mental beings’. Other examples would be dreams, past, future, abstractions, other mathematical entities like circles, squares, logical relations, negations and others.

You could write the a number on a piece of paper, but what you would have in reality is paper with a pattern of ink.

Could you answer my other questions?

The mathematical symbols are just the way we annotate what has happened. H2O is just a symbol for what we get when two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen. It doesn’t matter what we use to describe water but there always have been and always will be two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. You can’t ‘fine tune’ that combination and end up with water.

Similarly, you can use anything you want to symbolise two objects. But if you had one and now you have another, then you have two. ‘Two’ simply being the symbol to represent the number of objects. But you can’t have anything else. You can’t fine tune that to get something different.

So why do you expect you can fine tune any other aspect of reality? It is what it is. There are no other options.

You seem to be focused on either the fine tuning of beings that exist in your head (like numbers) or actual beings (like water molecules). I don’t claim those to be “finely tuned”. I’m focused on the conditions that exist to allow you to have numbers in your head, or perhaps the fine tuning strong nuclear force that allows H2O in the first place. If the Strong Nuclear force were a bit weaker, there would be only hydrogen…if a bit stronger all hydrogen would have been burned into helium. Either way…no life. Very finely tuned. (Others would be gravitational constant, expansion rate of universe, density of universe, entropy at big bang, etc)

Also, its not about “fine tuning any aspect of reality”, only the conditions that allow reality in the first place. There was one chance to get all of the fine tuned conditions right…at the formation of the universe.

 

[anon10271182]

When confronted with fine tuning, they often just try to change the channel (non-sequiturs, red herrings, straw men, etc.).

thread muted