Inviting Al Moritz to discuss the "fine tune" argument

[Tyrion]

Before we can dig into your essay, I would like to discuss some groundwork. After all your essay is quite a lot to read and digest. I would not want to postpone the discussion until I can accomplish that. So we can start with a “preamble” to your essay.

Let’s start with your first proposition:

The apparent extreme fine-tuning of the laws of nature, necessary to allow for physical evolution of the universe and evolution of life, is reviewed. The probability is strong that it is due to actual design – pointing to the existence of God – since this is the only assumption with sufficient explanatory power. The article shows that all non-design proposals fail to explain the apparent fine-tuning.

a) Brute chance
b) Necessity or high probability of the laws of nature
c) Life as we do not know it
d) The multiverse
In my eyes, you left out the “real” atheist stance:

e) The universe simply exist. It has no explanation, it needs no explanation. It’s existence is a “brute fact”. Observe the difference, you said “brute chance”, which is different. Now you may be surprised at this approach, so I need to explain why I think this is a viable approach.

If you think about it, this is exactly what you (generic “you”) say about God. You assert that God’s existence needs no explanation, it is simply a brute fact. The atheists say the same thing about the universe, so the theist and the atheist view are “mirror image” of each other.

Employing Occam’s razor, one is inclined to use the “simpler” working hypothesis. Naturally, this is merely a hypothesis, not an argument. To posit that the universe “simply” exists, is “simpler” than saying that God exists, and he created the universe.

The other reason is that positiing God’s existence carries no explanatory power. We have no idea how God carried out the creation. Putting it very simply: “an unknowable being, employing some unimaginable means made it somehow happen for some unknowable reason”. That does not qualify as an explanation, does it?

So before we start to discuss the specific argument, we need to establish that there IS a need for some arguments. Let’s start here.

---

Caveat: this thread is an explicit invitation to Al Moritz. Obviously anyone can make a contribution. However, unless I consider a post relevant to the topic, I will NOT reflect on it. Of course Al can do whatever he deems appropriate.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I have addressed the ‘brute fact’ argument in my article, see link below. Again, as I said, before we have a discussion, please read it in its entirety. I am not interested in reposting arguments that I have already laid out in detail:

Sure, we can have a discussion, and I will not ask you to read any long essay except mine:

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God
(A philosophical perspective on findings of science)

When you say “I am interested in what YOU have to say”, that is what you get. In my article I articulate the things that I want to say as well and as nuanced as I can, and answer all objections to the arguments as best and as comprehensively as I can, so this text should be the basis of our discussion after you have carefully read it.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If you think about it, this is exactly what you (generic “you”) say about God. You assert that God’s existence needs no explanation, it is simply a brute fact. The atheists say the same thing about the universe, so the theist and the atheist view are “mirror image” of each other.

By the way, your idea that God is considered by believers a ‘brute fact’ in a similar way as the universe is considered by atheists a ‘brute fact’ suggests that you are not well informed about classical philosophy, which is the intellectual foundation of much of the Catholic Church’s teaching. In it, God is considered an absolute metaphysical necessity for any being to exist. For an explanation of this philosophical stance, see for example Feser’s Aquinas. The universe on the other hand cannot be posited as a necessity, see also my article.

 

[tonyrey]

By the way, your idea that God is considered by believers a ‘brute fact’ in a similar way as the universe is considered by atheists a ‘brute fact’ suggests that you are not well informed about classical philosophy, which is the intellectual foundation of much of the Catholic Church’s teaching. In it, God is considered an absolute metaphysical necessity for any being to exist. For an explanation of this philosophical stance, see for example Feser’s Aquinas. The universe on the other hand cannot be posited as a necessity, see also my article.

The simple fact that the physical universe is composed of physical objects implies that it is neither self-sufficient nor self-explanatory. To reach that conclusion it is necessary to explain how and why the physical universe transcends physical objects - in addition to justifying the hypothesis that it is the sole form of reality (for which there is not one jot of evidence!).

 

[snarflemike]

If you think about it, this is exactly what you (generic “you”) say about God. You assert that God’s existence needs no explanation, it is simply a brute fact. The atheists say the same thing about the universe, so the theist and the atheist view are “mirror image” of each other.

Except that for thousands of years philosophers have been able to demonstrate that God MUST exist. There is no such demonstration re the universe.

Besides, one part of your “brute fact” is the the universe came into existence, while God did not. Do you have evidence (not merely mathematical speculation) that the universe existed before the big bang?

Employing Occam’s razor, one is inclined to use the “simpler” working hypothesis. Naturally, this is merely a hypothesis, not an argument. To posit that the universe “simply” exists, is “simpler” than saying that God exists, and he created the universe.

That is not correct, since God is perfectly simple, while the universe is most certainly not.

 

[Tyrion]

I have addressed the ‘brute fact’ argument in my article, see link below. Again, as I said, before we have a discussion, please read it in its entirety. I am not interested in reposting arguments that I have already laid out in detail:

Very well. I will go and read it. If you would pick one sentence from the pertinent paragraph and would copy it into a post (so I could search for it in the article itself), I would appreciate it, but it is not essential. I have this suspicion that we might not agree on the meaning of the phrase “brute fact”. I suspect that you consider the “brute chance” in your article as being the same as the “brute fact” in my words. And they are totally different, so we might be talking past each other. But we shall see how it unfolds.

By the way, your idea that God is considered by believers a ‘brute fact’ in a similar way as the universe is considered by atheists a ‘brute fact’ suggests that you are not well informed about classical philosophy, which is the intellectual foundation of much of the Catholic Church’s teaching. In it, God is considered an absolute metaphysical necessity for any being to exist. For an explanation of this philosophical stance, see for example Feser’s Aquinas.

Unfortunately I could not care less about what you call “classical philosophy” and what the church teaches. The reason is that we attempt to conduct a “pure” philosophical conversation here, regardless of what the church teaches, and regardless of the philosophical foundations of those teachings. By the way, what those people considered an “absolute metaphysical necessity” is nothing but empty speculation.

Let me say a few words here. If one wishes to argue for an “outside creator”, then it must be established that the “sheer existence” of the universe (without a creator) is a logical impossibility. The reason for this stipulation is this: there is the philosophical concept of the “possible world”, which simply means a “state of affairs”, which is different from the existing one in some respect. The difference may be just a small one, or it may be huge. The only limitation is that the state of affairs must be without a logical contradiction.

If it cannot be proven that the “universe without a creator” is a logically contradictory state of affairs, then the creator is not a “metaphysical necessity”. As such, in order to carve out a “niche” for a creator, you must show that somehow the “universe” logically needs a creator.

By the way, let’s assume for a second that you can succeed. Even in such a case you would only be able to show the “existence” of a deistic creator - but of course even that would be a huge step.

The universe on the other hand cannot be posited as a necessity, see also my article.

Oh, but I do not care, nor do I argue that the universe is a logical necessity. This is another misunderstanding. All I care about that the universe exists. The concepts of “necessary” and “contingent” are inapplicable TO the universe. Just like time, space, causation, etc. are only applicable WITHIN the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

That is not correct, since God is perfectly simple, while the universe is most certainly not.

:thumbsup:One Being rather than countless particles plus the laws of nature!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Unfortunately I could not care less about what you call “classical philosophy” and what the church teaches. The reason is that we attempt to conduct a “pure” philosophical conversation here, regardless of what the church teaches, and regardless of the philosophical foundations of those teachings. By the way, what those people considered an “absolute metaphysical necessity” is nothing but empty speculation.

So you don’t care about Aristotle (who obviously preceded the Catholic church and was a “pure” philosopher) and you dismiss all philosophy that does not fit your philosophy as “empty speculation”? Your choice. But I suppose under those circumstances we won’t get very far on these issues.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Unfortunately I could not care less about what you call “classical philosophy” and what the church teaches. The reason is that we attempt to conduct a “pure” philosophical conversation here, regardless of what the church teaches, and regardless of the philosophical foundations of those teachings. By the way, what those people considered an “absolute metaphysical necessity” is nothing but empty speculation.

So you don’t care about Aristotle (who obviously preceded the Catholic church and was a “pure” philosopher) and you dismiss all philosophy that does not fit your philosophy as “empty speculation”? Your choice. But I suppose under those circumstances we won’t get very far on these issues.

 

[Linux]

So you don’t care about Aristotle (who obviously preceded the Catholic church and was a “pure” philosopher) and you dismiss all philosophy that does not fit your philosophy as “empty speculation”? Your choice. But I suppose under those circumstances we won’t get very far on these issues.

loool

 

[Tyrion]

So you don’t care about Aristotle (who obviously preceded the Catholic church and was a “pure” philosopher) and you dismiss all philosophy that does not fit your philosophy as “empty speculation”? Your choice. But I suppose under those circumstances we won’t get very far on these issues.

Aristotele was a genius of his time. So was Plato, and a bunch of others. But their speculations are hopelessly outmoded. Back then there was almost no science, and people speculated (for example) about the 4 substances which were thought to make up everything (air, water, earth and fire). Should we take those ideas seriously? They posited “perfect ideal objects” and thought that the existing ojects are just crude manifestations of those “ideal” thingies. They speculated that the brain is just an organ to cool the blood… Should we take that nonsense seriously?

But this is not the topic. You brought up God, and necessary existence. If you wish to start from that point, then there is really no reason to continue. After all God is supposed to be the “end” result, not the starting point. As I said in the previous post, which you - unfortunately - disregarded, logically you should start from the assumption that the universe is “all there is”, then upon reflection you come to the conclusion that this assumption is a logical impossibility - and THEN you can start to posit some “outside creator”.

 

[Eleve]

The reason for this stipulation is this: there is the philosophical concept of the “possible world”, which simply means a “state of affairs”, which is different from the existing one in some respect. The difference may be just a small one, or it may be huge. The only limitation is that the state of affairs must be without a logical contradiction.

No, that’s not true. A possible world also needs to be metaphysically possible. For example, there is no possible world where 2 + 2 = 5, but that is not a matter of bare logic, given (as is generally believed by philosophers of mathematics) that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic. To give two other examples, many philosophers believe that there is no possible world where it is possible to cause past events, and many others believe that there is no possible world where it is generally permissible to torture people for fun. But these impossibilities are matters of metaphysics and ethics, not of the general laws of logic.

This is not just a pedantic point. Those cosmological arguments which try to establish that the universe could not exist without God’s existence are appealing to metaphysical principles to establish metaphysical necessity. If those metaphysical principles hold, then there is no possible world that has a cosmos but no God, even if this is consistent with mere logic.

 

[Linux]

Aristotele was a genius of his time. So was Plato, and a bunch of others. But their speculations are hopelessly outmoded. Back then there was almost no science, and people speculated (for example) about the 4 substances which were thought to make up everything (air, water, earth and fire). Should we take those ideas seriously? They posited “perfect ideal objects” and thought that the existing ojects are just crude manifestations of those “ideal” thingies. They speculated that the brain is just an organ to cool the blood… Should we take that nonsense seriously?

Sooooo. When are you gonna discuss metaphysics?

But this is not the topic. You brought up God, and necessary existence. If you wish to start from that point, then there is really no reason to continue. After all God is supposed to be the “end” result, not the starting point.

Where are you getting your information from?

As I said in the previous post, which you - unfortunately - disregarded, logically you should start from the assumption that the universe is “all there is”

Logically? Methodological naturalism is not a logical principle of knowledge. Its a scientific investigative principle.

 

[snarflemike]

Aristotele was a genius of his time. So was Plato, and a bunch of others. But their speculations are hopelessly outmoded. Back then there was almost no science, and people speculated (for example) about the 4 substances which were thought to make up everything (air, water, earth and fire). Should we take those ideas seriously? They posited “perfect ideal objects” and thought that the existing ojects are just crude manifestations of those “ideal” thingies. They speculated that the brain is just an organ to cool the blood… Should we take that nonsense seriously?

You’re confusing the science of the ancients, which has clearly been passed by, with the philosophy / metaphysics of the ancients.

 

[snarflemike]

Oh, but I do not care, nor do I argue that the universe is a logical necessity. This is another misunderstanding. All I care about that the universe exists. The concepts of “necessary” and “contingent” are inapplicable TO the universe. Just like time, space, causation, etc. are only applicable WITHIN the universe.

Sounds like special pleading to me.

 

[Al_Moritz]

But this is not the topic. You brought up God, and necessary existence. If you wish to start from that point, then there is really no reason to continue. After all God is supposed to be the “end” result, not the starting point.

I do not wish to start from that point. It came up as a response to a post of yours, not as an argument in my article. Thatc is what you get when you start a discussion about an article that you haven’t read and which does not mention anything about God being a starting point. Read my article.

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, Tyrion, that God is metaphysically necessary (an argument that I do not mention in my article) is a philosophical conclusion, NOT a premise. But you wouldn’t know that if you haven’t studied classical metaphysics and believe that the value of Aristotle’s metaphysics hinges on the quality of his science.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Very well. I will go and read it. If you would pick one sentence from the pertinent paragraph and would copy it into a post (so I could search for it in the article itself), I would appreciate it, but it is not essential. I have this suspicion that we might not agree on the meaning of the phrase “brute fact”. I suspect that you consider the “brute chance” in your article as being the same as the “brute fact” in my words. And they are totally different, so we might be talking past each other. But we shall see how it unfolds.

Unfortunately I could not care less about what you call “classical philosophy” and what the church teaches. The reason is that we attempt to conduct a “pure” philosophical conversation here, regardless of what the church teaches, and regardless of the philosophical foundations of those teachings. By the way, what those people considered an “absolute metaphysical necessity” is nothing but empty speculation.

Let me say a few words here. If one wishes to argue for an “outside creator”, then it must be established that the “sheer existence” of the universe (without a creator) is a logical impossibility. The reason for this stipulation is this: there is the philosophical concept of the “possible world”, which simply means a “state of affairs”, which is different from the existing one in some respect. The difference may be just a small one, or it may be huge. The only limitation is that the state of affairs must be without a logical contradiction.

If it cannot be proven that the “universe without a creator” is a logically contradictory state of affairs, then the creator is not a “metaphysical necessity”. As such, in order to carve out a “niche” for a creator, you must show that somehow the “universe” logically needs a creator.

By the way, let’s assume for a second that you can succeed. Even in such a case you would only be able to show the “existence” of a deistic creator - but of course even that would be a huge step.

Oh, but I do not care, nor do I argue that the universe is a logical necessity. This is another misunderstanding. All I care about that the universe exists. The concepts of “necessary” and “contingent” are inapplicable TO the universe. Just like time, space, causation, etc. are only applicable WITHIN the universe.

I can see Tyrion that you are " loaded for bear " as the saying goes. And I can’t pretend to speak for Al or anyone else here but it appears on the surface that you really don’t want any argument at all opposing your position. You waltz in here and declare arbitrarily that you dismiss Scholastic Philosophy out of hand and won’t even discuss it.

Then you wave " Occasms Razor " around like a club assuming without reason that it applies favorably to your argument and that therefore you have automatically vanquished all adversaries from the field. I think, my friend, you had better decide whether you want a discussion or whether you want to lay down the Dogma of Atheism as an a De Fide fact and that we should all leave the room or at least be quiet.

So the question is, do you want a discussion or do you plan to continue dictating.
Now if you want a discussion fine but you will have to be prepared to adjust your attitude a mite and you must be prepared to discuss Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas or any other philosopher we care to bring forward in support of the conclusion that only God can account for the motion/change, existence, and directedness inherent throughout the universe. And since this is a Catholic site, we claim the right to invoke Catholic Doctrine and/or Dogma as the situation dictates.

If you want a fair and open discussion fine, if not then you may as well go elsewhere.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

No, that’s not true. A possible world also needs to be metaphysically possible. For example, there is no possible world where 2 + 2 = 5, but that is not a matter of bare logic, given (as is generally believed by philosophers of mathematics) that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic. To give two other examples, many philosophers believe that there is no possible world where it is possible to cause past events, and many others believe that there is no possible world where it is generally permissible to torture people for fun. But these impossibilities are matters of metaphysics and ethics, not of the general laws of logic.

This is not just a pedantic point. Those cosmological arguments which try to establish that the universe could not exist without God’s existence are appealing to metaphysical principles to establish metaphysical necessity. If those metaphysical principles hold, then there is no possible world that has a cosmos but no God, even if this is consistent with mere logic.

1. The primary null hypothesis is that nothing exists!
2. This hypothesis is untenable because a hypothesis presupposes intelligence.
3. Science also presupposes the existence of intelligence.
4. Therefore the only rational null hypothesis is the existence of intelligence.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

By the way, Tyrion, that God is metaphysically necessary (an argument that I do not mention in my article) is a philosophical conclusion, NOT a premise. But you wouldn’t know that if you haven’t studied classical metaphysics and believe that the value of Aristotle’s metaphysics hinges on the quality of his science.

Small-town atheist vs. actual scientist.

I have to admit, I was hoping the atheist would at least show up.

That was just pitiful.