The one fact that ruins the fine-tuning argument

[tonyrey]

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

The difference is not in degree but in kind. Tornadoes are not in the same category as living organisms with an urge to survive and they are totally incomparable to rational beings - unless you liken them to destructive monsters such as Gadaffi…

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.

The number of planets which may have living beings is irrelevant because they are in the same universe with **the same physical constants **and the same chemical elements essential for life. The same degree of improbability applies to all without exception. Your argument boils down to faith in the power of fortuitous combinations of purposeless particles to produce rational beings, thereby undermining the very foundations of your confidence in your capacity for insight and logical thought. An accident is not a sound bet where philosophy or science are concerned!

1. 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.

No response!

1. Both size and complexity are handicaps when it comes to survival because there is more risk of accident or malfunction.

No response!

1. 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!

No response!

I haven’t stated that it is unlikely that some 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.

No response!

The argument is concerned with Design not with 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.

The flaw in your hypothesis is the total lack of evidence that purposeful design can be produced without a rational intelligence.

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.

The Gospel according to Dawkins overlooks the fact that human beings design very complex machines but their minds are not regarded as impossibly complex entities. Knowledge of a few fundamental rules is sufficient to design immensely powerful computers. Moreover there is no reason whatsoever to suppose the activity of the mind is comparable to the workings of the physical universe - which is not even aware of our or its existence. This is a classic example of the madness of materialism which devalues, dehumanises, depersonalises mankind and destroys every semblance of reason behind reality. Persons are reduced to particles and purpose to pointless permutations of matter…

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7786089:

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).

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that “Christians write this off in their minds by assuming that god is somehow simple.” A word that is defined as a mind with no parts, although there is no evidence there are minds without parts, is made up and slapped onto the definition of “god”. It amounts to defining the problem away.

I don’t want to divert this thread away from the topic, so if you want to discuss how defining god as not having any parts excuses him from the same problems that organized complexity in this universe has, we can do so in a new thread.

 

[Pieman333272]

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that “Christians write this off in their minds by assuming that god is somehow simple.” A word that is defined as a mind with no parts, although there is no evidence there are minds without parts, is made up and slapped onto the definition of “god”. It amounts to defining the problem away.

I don’t want to divert this thread away from the topic, so if you want to discuss how defining god as not having any parts excuses him from the same problems that organized complexity in this universe has, we can do so in a new thread.

God is a spirit. A spirit is not made of parts. Do you have an objection to this or are you going to pull out the “cop-out” excuse on me?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Tonyrey, I didn’t take the time to give a line-by-line reply of everything that you said because it’s only worth responding to your more salient points, but now that you irrationally think that if I don’t respond to every bad or off-topic point you made that those points are somehow valid, I’ll respond a little more.

TruthSeeker60;7786089:

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.

The difference is not in degree but in kind. Tornadoes are not in the same category as living organisms. . .]

Your argument was that having very stringent conditions for some occurrence makes it unlikely that that occurrence. My application of tornadoes to your “logic” shows how irrational that is. Thus, whether tornadoes are in the same category as living organisms or not is beside the point.

The number of planets which may have living beings is irrelevant because they are in the same universe with **the same physical constants **and the same chemical elements essential for life. The same degree of improbability applies to all without exception.

The number of planets that are capable of supporting life is relevant to whether or not it is likely that life formed somewhere in the universe since the more potential life-supporting planets exist, the more likely it is for abiogenesis to happen. To illustrate this, if I rolled a die once that has a million sides, it’s unlikely that I would roll a 1. However, if I roll that one million sided die a billion times, it would be extremely unlikely that I would not roll a 1 at least once.

Now onto the section where you seemed to irrationally think that my lack of responses to your bad arguments somehow vindicates you:

tonyrey;7784049:

1. 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.

1. Both size and complexity are handicaps when it comes to survival because there is more risk of accident or malfunction.
2. 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!

No response!

Of course I didn’t waist time by responding to these. These are off-topic arguments about evolution, which occurs after abiogenesis (the formation of the very simplest self-replicating “life”), on a thread that’s about the fine tuning of the universe to support life.

All of these basically argue that larger, more complex, and smarter life forms are less likely to survive, which isn’t the case. Evolution is largely about tradeoffs and compromises. Being larger, more complex, and more capable of reasoning can have both advantages and disadvantages for survival.

TruthSeeker60;7786089:

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.

The flaw in your hypothesis . . .]

I didn’t assert a hypothesis, but rather said that going from “the universe was designed by a conscious being” to “that conscious being is the being that I’ve been calling ‘god’” is a non-sequitur.

[Dawkins] overlooks the fact that human beings design very complex machines but their minds are not regarded as impossibly complex entities.

So you are either:

1 Asserting that the brain is not complex.
or
2 Asserting (or rather assuming) the existence of some sort of mind other than the brain.

If you could either prove the existence of a mind other than the brain or prove that the brain is not complex by fully uncovering how the brain works, you should win a Nobel Prize!

 

[TruthSeeker60]

God is a spirit. A spirit is not made of parts. Do you have an objection to this?

I object on the ground that you’re defining “god” as a mind without parts without evidence, while we don’t even know what a mind without parts is since all minds that we know of have parts. It’s basically defining “god” out of having the same problem that natural phenomenon would have. Now if it could be demonstrated that there is a mind without parts, that would be an excellent topic of a new thread.

Perhaps an analogy would clarify my objection. I realize that this analogy is imperfect, but I think you’re smart enough to get what I’m trying to say anyways. Lets say that someone claimed that the Wright Brothers designed an aircraft that didn’t use any power whatsoever to fly. One could make up a word (say “besba”) and define it as “an aircraft that doesn’t use any power whatsoever to fly,” and consider the problem solved: The Wright Brothers designed a “besba”. However, this doesn’t actually solve the problem. A better explanation would be that they designed a glider that uses kinetic energy built up by something or someone taking high up and letting it go. Even if we lacked evidence of something (such as an airplane that gave it a lift) giving energy to it, that alone doesn’t confirm that there really is an aircraft that doesn’t use any power whatsoever to fly, and throwing “an aircraft that doesn’t use any power whatsoever to fly” into the definition of a word doesn’t mean that that entity has that characteristic.

In the case that Dawkins lays out, he says that a designer god cannot be used to explain organized complexity in the universe since that god would demand the same explanation in his (her?) own right. It’s like going from “what made the universe” to “what made god”. The same problems apply to a god even if someone tries to define god as an entity that somehow doesn’t have those problems.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Breaking in on the thread, so this comment may be utterly irrelevant to whatever’s above mine.

The main problem with the fine-tuning argument is that it does not prove God created the universe. What’s to say it wasn’t angelically designed? Or that our universe is a practice universe made by a fallible watchmaker before churning out a celestial Rolex? etc.
The argument is simply cannot be used to prove the existence of God. A designer, possibly, but the designer can not be necessarily described as God through the argument.

 

[Pieman333272]

I object on the ground that you’re defining “god” as a mind without parts without evidence, while we don’t even know what a mind without parts is since all minds that we know of have parts. It’s basically defining “god” out of having the same problem that natural phenomenon would have. Now if it could be demonstrated that there is a mind without parts, that would be an excellent topic of a new thread.

OK, since I agree with you that this is increasingly off-topic, we should start a new thread. This may also attract some posters more knowledgeable than me to the topic, which is indeed fascinating. If you read this before ~10 AM EST tomorrow feel free to start the thread, otherwise I will do so.

Now, before then, let me say that there does not need to be a natural equivalent to every possible trait God has for it to be possible. For the sake of example, it is possible for God, provided he exists, to be eternal even though nothing in the natural world is known to be eternal. I think you would agree with me here and if not I can expand on this point, but I need to hit the sack now.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

AT:

Well, yes, that’s one way to look at it. But, I will put to you another: One single hand of bridge is ever played and I am dealt the perfect bridge hand. No other hand is ever seen. All I can do is conjecture that they might arise.

God bless,
jd

 

[rick43235]

AT:

Well, yes, that’s one way to look at it. But, I will put to you another: One single hand of bridge is ever played and I am dealt the perfect bridge hand. No other hand is ever seen. All I can do is conjecture that they might arise.

God bless,
jd

I don’t think AT is here anymore. I think he fell prey to the CAF Gestapo.

 

[tonyrey]

Breaking in on the thread, so this comment may be utterly irrelevant to whatever’s above mine.

The main problem with the fine-tuning argument is that it does not prove God created the universe. What’s to say it wasn’t angelically designed? Or that our universe is a practice universe made by a fallible watchmaker before churning out a celestial Rolex? etc.
The argument is simply cannot be used to prove the existence of God. A designer, possibly, but the designer can not be necessarily described as God through the argument.

It is not intended to prove God created the universe but to expose the fatal weakness of “the pointless universe” hypothesis, i.e. the notion that the universe exists for no reason or purpose whatsoever…

 

[tonyrey]

Your argument was that having very stringent conditions for some occurrence makes it unlikely that that occurrence. My application of tornadoes to your “logic” shows how irrational that is. Thus, whether tornadoes are in the same category as living organisms or not is beside the point.

According to that argument fortuitous events are capable of producing anything whatsoever! In other words you have faith in the power of inanimate matter to create all the harmony, beauty and value of existence…

The number of planets which may have living beings is irrelevant because they are in the same universe with the same physical constants and the same chemical elements essential for life. The same degree of improbability applies to all without exception.

The number of planets that are capable of supporting life is relevant to whether or not it is likely that life formed somewhere in the universe since the more potential life-supporting planets exist, the more likely it is for abiogenesis to happen.

Within the existing framework of natural laws.

To illustrate this, if I rolled a die once that has a million sides, it’s unlikely that I would roll a 1. However, if I roll that one million sided die a billion times, it would be extremely unlikely that I would not roll a 1 at least once.

You are still assuming **blind forces **are the most adequate explanation of rational beings. Do you rely on chance to make your important decisions or to reach your conclusions about the nature of reality?

1. 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.

1. Both size and complexity are handicaps when it comes to survival because there is more risk of accident or malfunction.

1. 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!

Of course I didn’t waist (waste?) time by responding to these. These are off-topic arguments about evolution, which occurs after abiogenesis (the formation of the very simplest self-replicating “life”), on a thread that’s about the fine tuning of the universe to support life.

The degree of complexity of life is obviously relevant. You are implying it is totally insignificant. In other words you believe there are no limits to what Chance can achieve!

All of these basically argue that larger, more complex, and smarter life forms are less likely to survive, which isn’t the case. Evolution is largely about tradeoffs and compromises. Being larger, more complex, and more capable of reasoning can have both advantages and disadvantages for survival.

Then please explain why monocellular organisms have survived to this very day whereas far more advanced animals have become extinct. Both size and complexity are handicaps when it comes to survival because there is more risk of accident or malfunction. Do you deny that the power of reason greatly exceeds what is needed to preserve life and poses the greatest threat to life on this planet?

[Dawkins]
overlooks the fact that human beings design very complex machines but their minds are not regarded as impossibly complex entities.

So you are either:

1 Asserting that the brain is not complex.
or
2 Asserting (or rather assuming) the existence of some sort of mind other than the brain.

You are assuming the lump of tissue inside your skull:

1. is aware it exists
2. can control itself
3. makes rational decisions
4. overrides the laws of nature
5. is responsible for the success of science
6. has insight into the nature of reality
7. exists as a result of its survival value and
8. exists for no other purpose whatsoever

In other words you stake everything on the creative power of purposeless particles!
Your argument boils down to faith in the power of fortuitous combinations of material objects to produce rational beings, thereby undermining the very foundations of your confidence in your capacity for insight and logical thought.

As I pointed out, this is a classic example of the madness of materialism which devalues, dehumanises, depersonalises mankind and destroys every semblance of reason behind reality. Persons are reduced to biological machines and purpose to pointless permutations of matter **yet you continue to think and act as if you are a rational, autonomous being **capable of transcending your physical environment and objectively interpreting the nature of reality!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As to whether there is any life elsewhere in the universe, that seems to me a pointless question. Even if there is, we are never going to know for sure that it is so. All the galaxies are moving away from each other at accelerating velocities, and therefore it seems unlikely that we can space travel is such a way as to overcome the increasing estrangement of the galaxies and any creatures that may inhabit them. Science fiction adventures are just a way to divert us from the fact that we must confront most of all why the universe exists and what role we have to play in it.

What is our role in the history of the universe? Assuming there are countless planets throughout the universe that contain life, does any of them approach the life that exists on our planet? How do we know that we are not the most advanced life forms in the universe?

Has the universe been aiming itself toward us like an archer aims at a target from the very start of the Big Bang?

Are we unimportant, relatively important, or supremely important? From the point of view of atheistic science, we are none of the above, since the universe has no mind nor is there a Creator to care one way or the other.

 

[tonyrey]

As to whether there is any life elsewhere in the universe, that seems to me a pointless question. Even if there is, we are never going to know for sure that it is so. All the galaxies are moving away from each other at accelerating velocities, and therefore it seems unlikely that we can space travel is such a way as to overcome the increasing estrangement of the galaxies and any creatures that may inhabit them. Science fiction adventures are just a way to divert us from the fact that we must confront most of all why the universe exists and what role we have to play in it.

What is our role in the history of the universe? Assuming there are countless planets throughout the universe that contain life, does any of them approach the life that exists on our planet? How do we know that we are not the most advanced life forms in the universe?

Has the universe been aiming itself toward us like an archer aims at a target from the very start of the Big Bang?

Are we unimportant, relatively important, or supremely important? From the point of view of atheistic science, we are none of the above, since the universe has no mind nor is there a Creator to care one way or the other.

You are right. It is not the quantity of life that is significant but the fact that life exists at all! Whether it is rare or abundant is irrelevant to its immense value. And no reasonable person denies it is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment, love and fulfilment. That one fact alone doesn’t ruin but justifies the fine-tuning argument!

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

You are right. It is not the quantity of life that is significant but the fact that life exists at all! Whether it is rare or abundant is irrelevant to its immense value. And no reasonable person denies it is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment, love and fulfilment. That one fact alone doesn’t ruin but justifies the fine-tuning argument!

Some atheists attempt to discredit the “fine tuning” explanation as circular reasoning, which does not hold up to scrutiny. The question we are trying to answer is as follows:

**Question: ** Why does the Universe ideally support the existence of complex, highly ordered life?

Possible general explanations can encompass the following:

**Answer 1: **It does so because the Universe was intentionally “fine tuned” to do so.
**Answer 2: **It does so because of random chance of the Universe’s physical constant allow it to do so.
**Answer 3: **It does so because all Universes can only exist with these specific physical constants that allow it to do so.

 

[tonyrey]

Some atheists attempt to discredit the “fine tuning” explanation as circular reasoning, which does not hold up to scrutiny. The question we are trying to answer is as follows:

**Question: ** Why does the Universe ideally support the existence of complex, highly ordered life?

Possible general explanations can encompass the following:

**Answer 1: **It does so because the Universe was intentionally “fine tuned” to do so.
**Answer 2: **It does so because of random chance of the Universe’s physical constant allow it to do so.
**Answer 3: **It does so because all Universes can only exist with these specific physical constants that allow it to do so.

In other words Design, Chance or Necessity, of which the first is by far the most reasonable explanation in view of the immense power, value and significance of reason!

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I’m not going to go into a lengthy line-by-line discussion with you, Tonyrey, because in posts such as the following, in which you seem to make your central point, you demonstrate how confused you are:

TruthSeeker60;7787006:

Your argument was that having very stringent conditions for some occurrence makes it unlikely that that occurrence. My application of tornadoes to your

“logic” shows how irrational that is. Thus, whether tornadoes are in the same category as living organisms or not is beside the point.

According to that argument fortuitous events are capable of producing anything whatsoever!

Your idea that either “god did it” or “anything can be produced” is a false dichotomy. Ultimately, how the universe exists is an unknown. My application of tornadoes to your “logic” that having very stringent conditions for some occurrence makes it unlikely that that occurrence tore a hole in your argument for the existence of a god. The argument it destroyed would have only beee a non-sequitur anyways.

 

[tonyrey]

My application of tornadoes to your “logic” shows how irrational that is. Thus, whether tornadoes are in the same category as living organisms or not is beside the point.

In other words you prefer to ignore the difference between purposeless phenomena and purposeful organisms simply to cling to your conclusion!

You seem to believe that although living organisms are immensely more complex than tornadoes they are just as likely to occur for no reason or purpose whatsoever. If so you are assuming immense complexity is as insignificant as simplicity - which is a logical corollary of your assumption that nothing is designed and everything is insignificant. This amounts to believing not only that fortuitous events are capable of producing anything whatsoever but they have actually done so!

Your idea that either “god did it” or “anything can be produced” is a false dichotomy.

I haven’t even mentioned God because the topic is not God but Design. The dichotomy is that the universe is designed or it is not designed.

Ultimately, how the universe exists is an unknown.

Of course it is unknown. What we are discussing is not what we** know** but whether the fine-tuning argument is cogent - which is further evidence for the dichotomy: either the universe is fine-tuned or it isn’t…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Of course it is unknown. What we are discussing is not what we know but whether the fine-tuning argument is cogent - which is further evidence for the dichotomy: either the universe is fine-tuned or it isn’t…

What would give anyone the impression that it isn’t fine-tuned when most of the theory is for the likelihood that it is?

 

[tonyrey]

Of course it is unknown. What we are discussing is not what we know but whether the fine-tuning argument is cogent - which is further evidence for the dichotomy: either the universe is fine-tuned or it isn’t…

What would give anyone the impression that it isn’t fine-tuned when most of the theory is for the likelihood that it is?

The indefensible conviction that it cannot be!

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7797632:

My application of tornadoes to your

“logic” that having very stringent conditions for some occurrence makes it unlikely that that occurrence tore a hole in your argument for the existence of a god. The argument it destroyed would have only beee a non-sequitur anyways.

In other words you prefer to ignore the difference between purposeless . . .]

If you’ve been reading what I’ve written about applying tornadoes to your “logic”, you would see that what I’ve written has to do with dispelling your belief that because there are stringent conditions for something means that that occurrence is unlikely to happen at all. It was not talking about purpose.

You seem to believe that although living organisms are immensely more complex than tornadoes they are just as likely to occur. . .]

Strawman!

TruthSeeker60;7797632:

tonyrey;7787878:

According to that argument fortuitous events are capable of producing anything whatsoever

!

Your idea that either “god did it” or “anything can be produced” is a false dichotomy.

I haven’t even mentioned God because the topic is not God but Design. The dichotomy is that the universe is designed or it is not designed.

I should have used the phrase “conscious designer”. Regardless, your idea that either the universe was designed (by a conscious designer as opposed to purely natural forces) and “anything can be produced” is a false dichotomy.

Of course it is unknown. What we are discussing is not what we** know** but whether the fine-tuning argument is cogent - which is further evidence for the dichotomy: either the universe is fine-tuned or it isn’t…

How can one determine whether the universe was designed without making some appeal to ignorance like “we don’t know how purely natural forces can do this” or some appeal like “well, it seems designed?”