Dear Resident Theists

[Kingpin]

Sure, here's an article he wrote discussing it in the WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1609024244

And do you care to pinpoint the part where he lends credence to the immense 'design' and fine tuning? I asked for a direct quote not an entire article. On the face of this article it's actually only proving my point. Hell it's entitled "why god did not create the universe". That alone flies in the face of your assertion that he lends credence to design and fine tuning.

Sure, here's a quote from the article:

"The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way."

He then goes on to explain his multiverse theory.

[Kingpin]

Grrrr...quoting system.....

Whateverist, I understand naturalism and would never espouse something I know to be false. I'm not like some of the theists on here. All I was stating was that in Hawking's view, in the singularity the laws of nature would necessarily be broken down. By that definition the beginning would be supernatural. I'm not implying the laws of nature to be eternal. In fact Hawking there himself states that the laws of nature were broken down, broken or non-existent in the singularity. The definition of supernatural is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. So in Hawking's view of the singularity, the beginning is indeed supernatural.

[Napoléon]

Sure, here's a quote from the article:

"The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way."

He then goes on to explain his multiverse theory.

You're misunderstanding the point being made and taking out of context what Hawking actually has to say about fine-tuning and design. The very reason the phrase "fine-tuning" is being used this way is because of the fact people like you like to suggest that the universe appears fine tuned. This whole article is an argument against that notion.

You realise this is adapted from Hawking's book "the Grand Design"? Do you think that because he uses this term, it lends credence to the theory of design? Or does the irony fly over your head much like the point being made throughout the entire article?

If you actually read the article and understand the points, it's that the universe appears to be fine-tuned, but Hawking's point, in both this article, and his book, is that there is in fact no fine-tuning at all, and no need for a creator.

It's convenient you can read one sentence that uses the term 'fine-tuned' in a rhetorical sense, and use it to implicate that the universe must be designed, but not the very next paragraph, that utterly destroys that notion:

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science.

So yeah, take it out of context and misrepresent all you like. Hawking is clearly not suggesting the universe is fine-tuned, he's offering an explanation of why it appears to be so.

[Kingpin]

Sure, here's a quote from the article:

"The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way."

He then goes on to explain his multiverse theory.

You're misunderstanding the point being made and taking out of context what Hawking actually has to say about fine-tuning and design. The very reason the phrase "fine-tuning" is being used this way is because of the fact people like you like to suggest that the universe appears fine tuned. This whole article is an argument against that notion.

You realise this is adapted from Hawking's book "the Grand Design"? Do you think that because he uses this term, it lends credence to the theory of design? Or does the irony fly over your head much like the point being made throughout the entire article?

If you actually read the article and understand the points, it's that the universe appears to be fine-tuned, but Hawking's point, in both this article, and his book, is that there is in fact no fine-tuning at all, and no need for a creator.

It's convenient you can read one sentence that uses the term 'fine-tuned' in a rhetorical sense, and use it to implicate that the universe must be designed, but not the very next paragraph, that utterly destroys that notion:

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science.

So yeah, take it out of context and misrepresent all you like. Hawking is clearly not suggesting the universe is fine-tuned, he's offering an explanation of why it appears to be so.

I am not taking it out of context.  Hawking is indeed saying this universe is fine tuned.  He explains in detail why.  However, he comes to a conclusion to explain it away:

"Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."

So he has a theory that this universe is one of many infinite possible universes and because of that, the fine-tuning is irrelevant.  But its a theory.  It is not fact.  Also I agree with him that IF the multiverse theory were true then yes it would reduce the fine-tuning for life to be a simple matter of chance/inevitability.  But multiverse theory is far from proven.  Let's stick to just this universe.  It is fine tuned for the existence of our lives.  If there are multiverses then we simply hit the lottery of all of the perfect properties for us to be here. If you want to believe in infinite parallel/alternate universes, that is your prerogative, I do not.

[GrandizerII]

If it's a theory, then it's based on facts. Otherwise, it's a hypothesis. Just thought I'd say this. I know at least this much about science.

[Homeless Nutter]

If it's a theory, then it's based on facts. Otherwise, it's a hypothesis. [...]

Uhm... Why exactly can't a hypothesis be based on facts?

[Cyberman]

Thank you for improving my analogy and then failing utterly to see how it obliterates your original contention even more decisively.

How so exactly?

Because your contention is that the emergence of one single life-bearing planet is the result of the whole rainforest being fine-tuned to produce it, without acknowledging the reasons, such as they may be, for the immensity (let alone the existence) of the rest of the rainforest. A tree falling on the other side of our imaginary continent would have zero impact on this atom-sized world, or a single gold atom, any more than a galaxy exploding billions of lightyears away would on our real Earth. At most, you have established the fine-tuning of the Earth as a biosphere, but even then you have no justification for entertaining non-physical hypotheses.

[GrandizerII]

If it's a theory, then it's based on facts. Otherwise, it's a hypothesis. [...]

Uhm... Why exactly can't a hypothesis be based on facts?

True. My wording was misleading.

I think what I meant to say is that a theory has already been tested to be a valid explanation of some facts whereas a hypothesis is more of an educated guess that is based on facts but yet to be tested.

If still incorrect, open to correction.

[Cyberman]

Are you really trying to appeal to Stephen Hawking's authority here? As though he supports your assertion about fine-tuning, or in any way even vaguely suggests that the universe was 'designed'? His works, and many of his musings, repeatedly talk about how no god is required and go against completely your own assertions. The conclusions you make from the universe are poles apart from his. Just read any of his books.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of what scientists like Stephen Hawking say on the topic of the universe being designed, doesn't appear that you are however. It's very disingenuous to namedrop someone like Hawking as though he would in any way endorse your own views.

Not at all Napoleon.  I'm quite aware that Hawking's conclusion and my own are polar opposites.  I merely mentioned that even scientific leaders such as Hawking lend credence to the immense design and, precision and fine-tuning of the universe.  He reaches a different conclusion than I do.

This is part of the 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lecture given by Richard Dawkins, "Designed and Designoid Objects". The video description says:

The problem of design.

Most objects in our world can be divided into two types: simple or designed. A pebble on a beach is a simple object, smoothed and rounded by physics alone. The same is true of stars and planets. A microscope or a calculator, on the other hand, is designed. Their existence has been moulded by humans with foresight to aid the examination of specimens, or help with mathematical sums.    

But there also exists another type of object which is neither simple, nor designed. These so-called ‘designoid’ objects have an internal and external complexity that makes us believe they have been exquisitely created for a specific purpose.

In his second lecture, Richard Dawkins explores the world of designoid objects. He reveals how the evolution of these beautiful creations has relied on natural selection over generations of time. Simple foundations have evolved into complex objects, like the inefficient webs once spun by spiders to the beautifully complex and efficient means of catching prey we see today.

But not everyone believes in evolution by natural selection. Creationists believe in the idea of a ‘watchmaker’ – a divine being responsible for creating everything in existence. But if there is such a being at work, why do designoid objects contain imperfections? Richard reminds us that designoid objects cannot come about by chance, but instead rely on a gradual process of selection that determines their function on Earth.

[Whateverist]

Grrrr...quoting system.....

Whateverist, I understand naturalism and would never espouse something I know to be false.  I'm not like some of the theists on here.  All I was stating was that in Hawking's view, in the singularity the laws of nature would necessarily be broken down.  By that definition the beginning would be supernatural.  I'm not implying the laws of nature to be eternal.  In fact Hawking there himself states that the laws of nature were broken down, broken or non-existent in the singularity.  The definition of supernatural is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.  So in Hawking's view of the singularity, the beginning is indeed supernatural.

But it is absurd to say the laws of nature come from the supernatural.  When the universe as we know it has cooled off completely, it won't be that the laws of nature have been suspended again.  Rather, the 'laws' of nature which describe the universe as we know it today will no longer adequately predict what the universe will do then.  Just as the 'laws of now' did not fit past conditions, they will likewise fall short in a sufficiently distant future.  But there is absolutely nothing unnatural about this.  A natural account of the universe as we know it now supports an account of the universe as it was long ago and will be much, much later.  A robust natural account includes not only the very useful minutia of the universe as it is today but also a 'natural' account of how it got to be this way as well as how and when it will change.  There is no need or application for a supernatural category.