General Discussions > Religion / Philosophy Talk
How does the fine tuning argument support theism?
lumberjohn:
--- Quote from: teethering on Feb 23, 2012, 11:10:26 AM ---Let me devil-advocate at this for a bit. The counter-argument to this is basically "god moves in mysterious ways", which normally is a lame cop-out, but in this case I think would have merit. In order to understand "why this way" for any design you have to know the final goal. If you accept that there's evidence of fine-tuning (which you shouldn't) and if you accept that such fine-tuning implies design (which you shouldn't) then asking "why so badly designed" is premature. We can presume then that intelligent life was a part of the overall design, but what the whole thing looks like could remain a mystery.
--- End quote ---
But if you're using the nature of the design as evidence for the existence of a designer, then I think "why so badly designed?" is a perfectly good argument. To use a Paley-esque example, assume I found a rock formation containing marks that could plausibly be argued as consistent with the roman numeral four. On certain days and in certain conditions, a shadow just touches on the "four" at exactly four o' clock in the applicable time zone. Am I justified in saying that this must have been designed as some sort of "clock" because it occasionally can be observed to tell the correct time? Would it not be a valid refutation to say that this "clock" doesn't tell the correct time most of the time and thus would be a very poor design for a clock? Doesn't that make an alternative explanation more likely?
It seems as though theists' arguments rests on three assumptions: 1. there is life in the universe; 2. the conditions of life are so rare that you wouldn't expect them to occur randomly; and 3. you would expect God to create a universe hospitable to life. I agree with your cogent refutation of assumption 2. But I think it is equally valid to point out that if the goal of the hypothesized designer were to create a universe hospitable to life, he did a poor job of it. The actual nature of the universe thereby rebuts the existence of such a designer.
andrewclunn:
Let me demonstrate with an example.
Imagine that there is a probablistic universe, which is not explicitly causal. All actions and results are probable in nature rather than causal. Now within that universe a being exists that creates a region where the probability of certain outcomes happening consistently that it acts (for all intents and purposes) as a casual universe. In such a fashion a causal universe may exist that is not itself reliant on causality.
now one could argue that perhaps pockets of this virtual causality might emerge without a designer and therefore no designer is needed, however that is not the assertion of multiverse theory. Mutliverse theory states that several (if not all) possible casual universes exist, so that by virtue of our observing our universe, we know that we must just happen to exist in one that permits life.
The reason why a designer in a container universe is more probable than endless universes emerging within a container universe? We already know that consciousness can arise, but have no evidence for multiple parallel universes.
teethering:
--- Quote from: lumberjohn on Feb 23, 2012, 11:55:33 AM ---
--- Quote from: teethering on Feb 23, 2012, 11:10:26 AM ---Let me devil-advocate at this for a bit. The counter-argument to this is basically "god moves in mysterious ways", which normally is a lame cop-out, but in this case I think would have merit. In order to understand "why this way" for any design you have to know the final goal. If you accept that there's evidence of fine-tuning (which you shouldn't) and if you accept that such fine-tuning implies design (which you shouldn't) then asking "why so badly designed" is premature. We can presume then that intelligent life was a part of the overall design, but what the whole thing looks like could remain a mystery.
--- End quote ---
But if you're using the nature of the design as evidence for the existence of a designer, then I think "why so badly designed?" is a perfectly good argument. To use a Paley-esque example, assume I found a rock formation containing marks that could plausibly be argued as consistent with the roman numeral four. On certain days and in certain conditions, a shadow just touches on the "four" at exactly four o' clock in the applicable time zone. Am I justified in saying that this must have been designed as some sort of "clock" because it occasionally can be observed to tell the correct time? Would it not be a valid refutation to say that this "clock" doesn't tell the correct time most of the time and thus would be a very poor design for a clock? Doesn't that make an alternative explanation more likely?
--- End quote ---
If you don't posit a specific (Christian god, for instance) designer, then I don't think this argument works. Suppose, for instance, that one of the prerequisites of the design is that it creates doubt in whether it was actually designed or not. Without knowing more about the goal of the design it's hard to tell whether it's good or not.
--- Quote ---It seems as though theists' arguments rests on three assumptions: 1. there is life in the universe; 2. the conditions of life are so rare that you wouldn't expect them to occur randomly; and 3. you would expect God to create a universe hospitable to life. I agree with your cogent refutation of assumption 2. But I think it is equally valid to point out that if the goal of the hypothesized designer were to create a universe hospitable to life, he did a poor job of it. The actual nature of the universe thereby rebuts the existence of such a designer.
--- End quote ---
But creating a universe hospitable to life isn't even the Christian god's ultimate goal, it's just a necessary step. What the real goal isn't revealed. What I'm saying is that there's a difference between detecting design itself and detecting the goal of the design, you may do the former and not the latter.
jomike:
--- Quote from: lumberjohn on Feb 23, 2012, 10:31:59 AM ---As Vic Stenger and Lawrence Krauss have recently pointed out, the universe is not "finely tuned" for any sort of life. There are ranges for many constants that could plausibly allow for some form of life
--- End quote ---
A theist would counter that there's hardly scientific consensus regarding which of the constants must be fixed as opposed to those that could exist within ranges (and, for the latter, how wide the ranges could be) in order for intelligent life to exist. She might quote prominent scientists such as the astrophysicist Hugh Ross, among others, to support her argument.
--- Quote from: lumberjohn on Feb 23, 2012, 10:31:59 AM ---But the more significant question, it seems to me, even if you spot them the poker hand analogy, is how does that imply a designer God?
--- End quote ---
If one believes that a) the universe we see is all there is -- no multiverse; b) it is the only universe that has ever existed (no Big Bang/Big Crunch eternal recurrence), and c) the possible combinations of physical constants that could support intelligent life are in fact as unlikely as they seem to be...
...if one believes those three things, it seems incredible that those critical initial starting parameters could have come together purely by chance. A Plantinga or Craig would ask, incredulously: We're believe that such an incredibly unlikely combination of constants somehow simply... occurred? Isn't it vastly more likely they were selected by an Intelligence? What a fantastic just-so story these atheistic scientists tell! We'd as well believe a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and assemble a 747!
--- Quote from: lumberjohn on Feb 23, 2012, 10:31:59 AM ---If the entire purpose of creating the universe was that there would be life (and in particular for the Judeo/Christian religions, a tribe of people living in ancient Israel over 2,000 years ago), why the long prologue and immense amounts of wasted space? Why is the vast majority of the universe inhospitable to life? The constants could surely have been tweaked further to allow for life everywhere, which is what I would define as a royal flush. Our universe is more akin to a pair of twos.
--- End quote ---
"The Lord is inscrutable," the theist would say. (Or words to that effect.) "Anyway, for all we know, the universe may be crawling with life. Some of it might even be intelligent. That we haven't discovered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
(BTW, as you mention Victor Stenger, he debated William Lane Craig on this very subject a couple years ago. Really entertaining, and can be downloaded here.)
teethering:
--- Quote from: andrewclunn on Feb 23, 2012, 11:55:56 AM ---Let me demonstrate with an example.
Imagine that there is a probablistic universe, which is not explicitly causal. All actions and results are probable in nature rather than causal. Now within that universe a being exists that creates a region where the probability of certain outcomes happening consistently that it acts (for all intents and purposes) as a casual universe. In such a fashion a causal universe may exist that is not itself reliant on causality.
--- End quote ---
Again, you posit your "being" where an alternative design-less explanation may posit acausal cause. There's no explanation for where the "being" comes from, similarly to how the explanations have to stop somewhere for any competing theory. There's no virtue in the "being" explanation, on the contrary, it posits the primary cause of literally unimaginable complexity.
--- Quote ---now one could argue that perhaps pockets of this virtual causality might emerge without a designer and therefore no designer is needed, however that is not the assertion of multiverse theory. Mutliverse theory states that several (if not all) possible casual universes exist, so that by virtue of our observing our universe, we know that we must just happen to exist in one that permits life.
The reason why a designer in a container universe is more probable than endless universes emerging within a container universe? We already know that consciousness can arise, but have no evidence for multiple parallel universes.
--- End quote ---
There is no godly consciousness that I know of in existence. All sorts of beings are intelligent in their own way, from bacteria to humans and none of them are capable of constructing or even understanding our universe.
Moreover the incredible complexity of intelligence that would be required to design the universe is a far less parsimonious explanation than an infinite series of universes. That doesn't speak to probabilities, and you shouldn't describe either theory as more probable for reasons I've covered already, but in terms of Occam's razor positing a superintelligent omnipotent conscious being is a huge leap in complexity.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version