The one fact that ruins the fine-tuning argument

[gavanhe]

Where is all the evidence for all the other infinite number of universes, at this point they’re only hypothesis to get over the sticky problem of a finely tuned universe created by God. In my humble opinion we can only talk meaningfully about the one we inhabit and it shows all the signs of having been created with all the fine tuning that we observe.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Luke’s observation is correct. The argument from “fine-tuning” is a particularly bad argument.

At a risk at sounding antagonistic, would you be able to elaborate on this comment?

 

[AntiTheist]

At a risk at sounding antagonistic, would you be able to elaborate on this comment?

Sure.

The argument from fine tuning asserts that the universe is “tuned” for life to exist in it because – well, hey, looky here – there’s life in it (on one planet that we know about, anyway). In other words, the universe has the right set of constants, forces, and qualities necessary for life to arise in it. The odds of a universe coming into being with such an exact combination of qualities is exceedingly small, so therefore, reasons this argument, it must have been created by an intelligent force that had life in mind, an intelligent force that “fine-tuned” the universe for life to exist.

And, of course, the problem with this argument is that it takes the result we got (a universe that contains life) and presumes that it was a goal. If the universe had been a little different – with a different set of constants, forces, qualities, etc. – we would have gotten a different universe. Maybe that different universe would have had life in it (either the kind of life we know or a different kind of life) and maybe it would not have. But it would have been different. This universe happens to be the combination we got.

 

[Windfish]

…we don’t know what other kinds of life are possible, even if the universe were entirely different. We have no idea if a change in a universal constant would prevent any kind of life developing anywhere in the universe.

Thoughts?

That’s the thing, we have an idea. Where are you getting this from? Atheists like Quentin Smith support this argument precisely because he knows that changes in any one of those constants would prevent life because they would result in cataclysmic conditions. Which books do you have the argument?

 

[Windfish]

Luke’s observation is correct. The argument from “fine-tuning” is a particularly bad argument.

It is probably one of the best. Seriously. It has the widest support among PhD philosophers, atheist or theist.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Sure.

The argument from fine tuning asserts that the universe is “tuned” for life to exist in it because – well, hey, looky here – there’s life in it (on one planet that we know about, anyway). In other words, the universe has the right set of constants, forces, and qualities necessary for life to arise in it. The odds of a universe coming into being with such an exact combination of qualities is exceedingly small, so therefore, reasons this argument, it must have been created by an intelligent force that had life in mind, an intelligent force that “fine-tuned” the universe for life to exist.

And, of course, the problem with this argument is that it takes the result we got (a universe that contains life) and presumes that it was a goal. If the universe had been a little different – with a different set of constants, forces, qualities, etc. – we would have gotten a different universe. Maybe that different universe would have had life in it (either the kind of life we know or a different kind of life) and maybe it would not have. But it would have been different. This universe happens to be the combination we got.

I appreciate your clarification. I’m not sure if I agree with your position (which is a polite way of saying I disagree) that it’s a particularly bad argument but I thank you for taking the effort to explain.

I think the hypothesis that that our existence is due “fine tuning”, based on the weight of probability, is not unreasonable. Our existence is evidence but of what is purely conjecture. The 'fined tuned" theory is a supposition like any other and uses the nature of our Universe, the principle of causality and probablity factors as evidence to support it. Those that advocate a “fine-tuned” Universe theory use it to explain our existence, much like other scientists do today.

By way of example, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with Jeremiah Ostriker (through his brother Rabbi David Ostriker) who postulated a theory of dark Matter. The hypothesis posits that dark matter exists based on gravitational measurements on detectable matter and radiation. The is no evidence other than inference to support this theory but it has gained acceptance in the scientific community and dark matter assumed to exist.

The argument is about explaining our existence and not about assigning motives or presuming a goal. That doesn’t necessarily mean its the best explaination for that matter.

 

[AntiTheist]

I think the hypothesis that that our existence is due “fine tuning”, based on the weight of probability, is not unreasonable.

Well, there’s a fundamental problem with it that I like to illustrate with this analogy:

Let’s say that I deal you a bridge hand. Do you know the odds of being dealt a perfect hand (two through ace, all of the same suit)? Well, I don’t know exactly either, but I do know that the odds are astronomically small (somewhere in the vicinity of one in several million).

Now, do you know the odds of being dealt any other particular combination of cards (say, a three of spades, a five of clubs, a jack of spades, a four of diamonds, a five of hearts, a King of hearts, etc.)? The odds of being dealt any particular combination of cards is exactly the same as being dealt a perfect hand.

To put it another way, every bridge hand is equally unlikely (or equally likely, if you prefer). The thing is, we have this idea – since we’ve set up the rules this way – that this one hand is somehow special, and that’s the only reason we think of the perfect hand as “rare” in a way that the other hands are not.

Similarly, only if you start from the assumption that the combination of values in our universe is “special” or a “goal” of some kind can you argue that it’s “rare” in a way that other combinations are not.

In other words, the argument from fine-tuning already makes the assumption that our universe was a goal, which requires the assumption that there was a mind that had making this universe for a goal, which means that the argument starts out by assuming the thing it’s trying to prove. That’s a circular argument, and it fails spectacularly.

 

[tonyrey]

In other words, the argument from fine-tuning already makes the assumption that our universe was a goal, which requires the assumption that there was a mind that had making this universe for a goal, which means that the argument starts out by assuming the thing it’s trying to prove. That’s a circular argument, and it fails spectacularly.

The argument from fine-tuning need not make the assumption that our universe is a goal. It is based on the fact that purposeful activity requires an explanation of how it originated.
Pur-pose necessitates fore**-**sight which material objects lack…

 

[tonyrey]

Where is all the evidence for all the other infinite number of universes, at this point they’re only hypothesis to get over the sticky problem of a finely tuned universe created by God. In my humble opinion we can only talk meaningfully about the one we inhabit and it shows all the signs of having been created with all the fine tuning that we observe.

That is true but we’re not entitled to assume that this is the only possible universe or that it must have developed exactly as it has done.

 

[Luke_K]

Well, there’s a fundamental problem with it that I like to illustrate with this analogy:

Let’s say that I deal you a bridge hand. Do you know the odds of being dealt a perfect hand (two through ace, all of the same suit)? Well, I don’t know exactly either, but I do know that the odds are astronomically small (somewhere in the vicinity of one in several million).

Now, do you know the odds of being dealt any other particular combination of cards (say, a three of spades, a five of clubs, a jack of spades, a four of diamonds, a five of hearts, a King of hearts, etc.)? The odds of being dealt any particular combination of cards is exactly the same as being dealt a perfect hand.

To put it another way, every bridge hand is equally unlikely (or equally likely, if you prefer). The thing is, we have this idea – since we’ve set up the rules this way – that this one hand is somehow special, and that’s the only reason we think of the perfect hand as “rare” in a way that the other hands are not.

Similarly, only if you start from the assumption that the combination of values in our universe is “special” or a “goal” of some kind can you argue that it’s “rare” in a way that other combinations are not.

In other words, the argument from fine-tuning already makes the assumption that our universe was a goal, which requires the assumption that there was a mind that had making this universe for a goal, which means that the argument starts out by assuming the thing it’s trying to prove. That’s a circular argument, and it fails spectacularly.

AntiTheist, I’ve addressed this issue with you before: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7148223#post7148223 Read posts 18 and 23.

Certain macrostates, or “card hands”, are indeed intrinsically special because they have fewer permutations which give the same distinguishable effect. If you shake a box of 4 coins, for example, and keep track of the heads and tails for the particular coins, every permutation is equally probable as you have pointed out. Each permutation has a 1/16 chance of happening. However, if you consider the 5 macrostates, which are the overall number of heads and tails, they are not equally probable. For 2 heads and 2 tails, there are 6 different permutations, so there is a 6/16 chance of 2 heads and 2 tails occurring. In contrast, there is only 1 possible permutation which gives 4 heads, and thus it has a 1/16 chance of occurring.

Similarly, there are many more permutations of parameters for the universe which prevent intelligent life from occurring. Every particular permutation is equally probable, but that doesn’t mean the overall effects, which are life or no-life, are equally probable.

What I’ve described to you is the statistical explanation of entropy. If the only factor governing the behavior of the contents of the universe was entropy, all the energy and particles would be as disordered and random as possible, because a disordered state is one which has the largest number of microstates (or permutations). However, the forces which particles exert on one another counter the effects of entropy to make the world a more interesting place. Taking our coins in a box example again, it would be as if we attached sticky tape to one side of the coins so that they preferentially landed on one side versus another.

So the forceful interactions of particles with one another are specifically such that intelligent life develops. They are such that lifeless, blind nano-scopic particles unknowingly interact with each other over huge distances to produce macroscopic organisms, which intelligently communicate with each other, interact, and shape the world around them. This demands explanation, and you can’t just ignore it as a roll of the dice: expasy.org/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl

 

[TruthSeeker60]

AntiTheist;7777269:

In other words, the argument from fine-tuning already makes the assumption that our universe was a goal, which requires the assumption that there was a mind that had making this universe for a goal, which means that the argument starts out by assuming the thing it’s trying to prove. That’s a circular argument, and it fails spectacularly.

The argument from fine-tuning need not make the assumption that our universe is a goal. It is based on the fact that purposeful activity requires an explanation of how it originated.
Pur-pose necessitates fore**-**sight which material objects lack…

The word “purpose” is a synonym for the word “goal”. Thus, Antitheist’s point, which I happen to agree with, stands regardless of which of those two words you want to use. The argument assumes a mind that made the universe with an intended purpose (or “god”), the very thing it tries to prove. Thus, it is circular.

 

[tonyrey]

The word “purpose” is a synonym for the word “goal”. Thus, Antitheist’s point, which I happen to agree with, stands regardless of which of those two words you want to use.

You have ignored my point that Pur-pose necessitates fore-sight which material objects lack…

The argument assumes a mind that made the universe with an intended purpose (or “god”), the very thing it tries to prove. Thus, it is circular.

The argument assumes nothing about a mind beyond the universe. It begins with the indisputable fact that both human beings and other living beings pursue goals, a fact that requires explanation…

BTW “happen” to agree with implies that it is due to chance - which is in accord with your interpretation that existence is purposeless…

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7778152:

The word “purpose

” is a synonym for the word “goal”. Thus, Antitheist’s point, which I happen to agree with, stands regardless of which of those two words you want to use. The argument assumes a mind that made the universe with an intended purpose (or “god”), the very thing it tries to prove. Thus, it is circular.

You have ignored my point that Pur-pose necessitates fore-sight which material objects lack…

Fore-sight, or forethought, presupposes consciousness (or a “mind”). Thus, it still presupposes what it tries to prove.

Your other comments were off topic.

 

[tonyrey]

The word “purpose” is a synonym for the word “goal”. Thus, Antitheist’s point, which I happen to agree with, stands regardless of which of those two words you want to use.

You have ignored my point that Pur-pose necessitates fore-sight which material objects lack…Fore-sight, or forethought, presupposes consciousness (or a “mind”). Thus, it still presupposes what it tries to prove.

Incorrect. Design by human minds does not presuppose the Design of the universe. Nor does the purposeful activity of living organisms presuppose a rational mind. The urge to survive exists in the simplest forms of life.

The argument assumes nothing about a mind beyond the universe

. It begins with the indisputable fact that both human beings and other living beings pursue goals, a fact that requires explanation…Your other comments were off topic.

The topic** is** whether the fine-tuning argument for Design is reasonable. How else can the suitability of the universe for goal-seeking activity be explained???

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7778300:

Fore-sight, or forethought, presupposes consciousness (or a “mind”). Thus, it still presupposes what it tries to prove.

Incorrect. Design by human minds does not presuppose the Design of the universe. Nor does the purposeful activity of living organisms presuppose a rational mind. The urge to survive exists in the simplest forms of life.

Since you seem confused about the topic, I’ll remind you that the topic is about the argument of the fine-tuning of the universe to support life.

Do you deny that goals, purpose, and forethought imply the existence of a mind?

TruthSeeker60;7778300:

Your other comments were off topic.

The topic** is** whether the fine-tuning argument for Design is reasonable. How else can the suitability of the universe for goal-seeking activity be explained???

So you are assuming that conscious creatures cannot come into existence without being designed (as opposed to coming about by an unconscious process) until someone can prove you wrong? That’s called a presupposition.

 

[tonyrey]

Since you seem confused about the topic, I’ll remind you that the topic is about the argument of the fine-tuning of the universe to support life.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

The goals and purposes of living organisms do not necessarily imply the existence of a mind. . .]

The fine-tuning argument is the argument that the universe is fine-tuned with the goal, purpose, or foresight of supporting life. This implies the very thing it tries to prove.

It is not a presupposition but a reasonable conclusion based on the immense improbability that purposeful, rational beings have emerged for no reason from purposeless, blind processes.

How have you determined that it’s unlikely that some form of conscious life, capable of rational thinking, to come into existence somewhere in the universe? Most scientists don’t claim to have enough information to access that probability. Moreover, how can you determine that it is more improbable than the existence of a designer god?

 

[tonyrey]

The fine-tuning argument is the argument that the universe is fine-tuned with the goal, purpose, or foresight of supporting life. This implies the very thing it tries to prove.

The goals and purposes of living organisms do not necessarily imply they are due to Design but it is the most reasonable conclusion:

1. **Very stringent conditions are required for life **as we know it.
2. This fact alone makes it **extremely improbable **that life is a fortuitous occurrence when taken in conjunction with our existence as rational beings.
3. Even scientists without any religious belief have conceded that **the most advanced forms of life are less likely to have developed or survived **than the simplest organisms - which have outlasted many other species.
4. Both size and complexity are handicaps when it comes to survival because there is more risk of accident or malfunction.
5. It is unreasonable to attribute the existence of reason to its survival value because it greatly exceeds what is needed to preserve life and it even poses the greatest threat to life on this planet. We are far more likely to become extinct than amoeba!

How have you determined that it’s unlikely that some form of conscious life, capable of rational thinking, to come into existence somewhere in the universe? Most scientists don’t claim to have enough information to access that probability.

I haven’t stated that it is unlikely thatsome form of conscious life, capable of rational thinking has come into existence somewhere in the universe. I believe it’s unlikely ** for the reasons I have given** above that some form of conscious life as we know it - capable of rational thinking - has come into existence somewhere in the universe fortuitously.

Moreover, how can you determine that it is more improbable than the existence of a designer god?
The argument is concerned with Design not with God.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

The goals and purposes of living organisms do not necessarily imply they are due to Design but it is the most reasonable conclusion:

1. **Very stringent conditions are required for life **as we know it.
2. This fact alone makes it **extremely improbable **that life is a fortuitous occurrence.

Going from, “there are very stringent conditions for X happening,” to, “therefore, it is extremely improbable that X is a fortuitous occurrence,” is a non-sequitur. To illustrate this, I’ll apply your logic to something else:

1 There are stringent conditions required for tornadoes to form (although different in degree of stringency compared to the formation of life).

2 This fact alone makes it very improbable that tornadoes are fortuitous occurrences.

Now, you probably object on the grounds that the conditions for the type of life we know of are much more stringent than tornadoes. The difference is in degree. However, the mere fact that the conditions for an occurrence are very stringent does not mean that it is unlikely to occur at all.

There are billions (trillions? quadrillions?) of planets in the universe, many of which may meet the conditions for life. We don’t have enough data to confidently say how probable or improbable the occurrence of life as we know it somewhere in the universe is. Project Kepler, a low cost NASA project to find earth-like planets, although in its infancy (studying a fraction of a very small portion of outer space) has already identified over 50 planets that appear thus far to meet the conditions for life, and are thus candidates for life.

Moreover, how can you determine that it is more improbable than the existence of a designer god?

You actually have a point. Even if the universe were consciously designed, the designer may not be a god. One of the assumptions made, when the design argument is used for the existence of a god, is that the alleged designer must be a god.

I should have asked, “Moreover, how can you determine that some form of life capable of rational thinking is more improbable than the existence of a designer?” If one were to infer that there was a conscious designers, and that that designer was a god, Richard Dawkins’ main argument in his book The God Delusion, which could be the topic of an entire new thread, comes into play here:

A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right

-page 136

Of course, most Christians write this off in their minds by assuming that god is somehow simple. However, this assumption does not excuse god from the same problems that organized complexity in this universe has.

 

[Pieman333272]

I should have asked, “Moreover, how can you determine that some form of life capable of rational thinking is more improbable than the existence of a designer?” If one were to infer that there was a conscious designers, and that that designer was a god, Richard Dawkins’ main argument in his book The God Delusion, which could be the topic of an entire new thread, comes into play here:

-page 136

Of course, most Christians write this off in their minds by assuming that god is somehow simple. However, this assumption does not excuse god from the same problems that organized complexity in this universe has.

God is indeed simple. God, being an immaterial spirit, lacks parts which makes Him up. When ID advocates and professional philosophers say something is complex, they mean it is made up of multiple different parts (oftentimes strung together in a particular way). Dawkins himself agrees with this definition in The Blind Watchmaker. A spirit is not made up of parts, ergo a spirit is simple.

Not a “cop-out”, if you decide to pull that card, but an application of basic logic and philosophy to defend Classical Theism.