Fine tuning argument assessed

[Mister Agenda]

You didn't answer the question. Had the parameters been changed, would god have been unable to create life?

Not human life as you require a fine tuned universe for it but he could make other kinds of being in some other layer existence like say the celestial hierarchy of angels.



Christ at the centre there.

So the God you believe in is not omnipotent and could not create and sustain life in a universe that can't support it naturally. I must say I prefer a less powerful God to a less benevolent one. I take it your version of God is doing the best it can under the circumstances?

[hatsoff]

You didn't answer the question. Had the parameters been changed, would god have been unable to create life?

God could create life elsewhere, sure. He could have created a second universe which permits it. But as SOC pointed out, God couldn't create life as we know it in a universe which does not physically permit it. He might have other options, though, involving the suspension of natural laws and the creation of supernatural life forms. It's not clear to me how that could work, but I cannot rule it out entirely.

Why do you ask?

[Tonus]

You didn't answer the question. Had the parameters been changed, would god have been unable to create life?

Not human life as you require a fine tuned universe for it but he could make other kinds of being in some other layer existence like say the celestial hierarchy of angels.

If the universe could support life under a different set of constants, then life does not depend on fine-tuning. We cannot use the current "settings" of the universe to argue for the existence of a "fine-tuner" if there are more than one setting that would allow life to appear.

---

But as SOC pointed out, God couldn't create life as we know it in a universe which does not physically permit it.

If he is limited in that manner, then I think it's clear that he did not create the universe.

[hatsoff]

If the universe could support life under a different set of constants, then life does not depend on fine-tuning. We cannot use the current "settings" of the universe to argue for the existence of a "fine-tuner" if there are more than one setting that would allow life to appear.

I don't see how this follows. Fine-tuning proponents are usually pretty clear that for each constant there is a range of life-permitting values, any of which would do the job. But the range is small, relative to the range of all possible values.

---

If he is limited in that manner, then I think it's clear that he did not create the universe.

This is not clear, no.

God can't, for instance, fit a square peg in a round hole (of certain sizes). He could change the square peg to a round peg in order to make it fit, but then it wouldn't be a square peg anymore. So, maybe he could pull a similar stunt with life in a non-life-permitting universe. However that would involve changing things quite radically from what we envision. At the very least, he would have to suspend the laws of nature in the non-life-permitting universe.

[Tonus]

I don't see how this follows. Fine-tuning proponents are usually pretty clear that for each constant there is a range of life-permitting values, any of which would do the job. But the range is small, relative to the range of all possible values.

In the discussions I can recall (and the beliefs I held when I was a theist), the argument from fine-tuning is that life would be impossible unless those values were in a very tight range, and that any deviation would make life impossible.

If that is the case, then the implication is that god cannot create life except under limited circumstances, which seems at odds with the idea that he created the universe and wrote the laws by which it works. It would imply that the universe was designed by someone else, and god found it.

If the argument is that there are other settings that would also work, then at the very least the fine-tuning argument is weakened. We no longer are talking about a frightfully-narrow band of settings that seem so improbable that they make a compelling case for a creator. It just means that out of the numerous possible universes and the possible life forms that could be produced, this is the one we wound up with.

[hatsoff]

In the discussions I can recall (and the beliefs I held when I was a theist), the argument from fine-tuning is that life would be impossible unless those values were in a very tight range, and that any deviation would make life impossible.

That's not exactly it, no. The argument aims to show that on naturalism, the life-permitting range of values is relatively small. Obviously, there are many more possibilities once we look at the supernatural. And that's one of the things the theist wants us to do---start looking at options other than naturalism.

[StuW]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet but it's quite possible that the current "fine tuned" state of the universe is the only way it could have been. We don't know know what is "outside" so it may be that physics have fixed values in all universes and be the ONLY way a universe can exist full stop.

[Tonus]

That's not exactly it, no. The argument aims to show that on naturalism, the life-permitting range of values is relatively small. Obviously, there are many more possibilities once we look at the supernatural. And that's one of the things the theist wants us to do---start looking at options other than naturalism.

If they are making the point that the universal constants are so finely-tuned that they might point at a creator, that's a lot like the argument that I cannot prove god doesn't exist. We cannot move any further, IMO, until the theist makes his case at this point. SOC works from the premise that the universe is the creation of the Christian god and (based on his recent response to my question) that there is at least one other set of parameters that would support life, albeit in a different form.

[Sword of Christ]

So the God you believe in is not omnipotent and could not create and sustain life in a universe that can't support it naturally.

He can and he did, it's this universe right here. A different universe wouldn't be capable of supporting organic life which is why he didn't make it that way but the way he did. He can do anything he pleases but it will have to be practical. We can make a car with square wheels if wanted it just technically wouldn't work. It's not that we aren't capable of making a car with square wheels such a thing is easy enough for us, but why would you want to?

I must say I prefer a less powerful God to a less benevolent one.

God has limitless power as he isn't limited by anything. He created everything else.

I take it your version of God is doing the best it can under the circumstances?

He had this universe, life and civilizations in mind so he created this very universe right here to perform that desired function. No mistakes or flaws were made just perfect fine tuning.

[WesOlsen]

It will only ever explain how the physical process we can see and detect operate that's the sphere in which it operates. We may not have covered even a tiny fraction of the sphere in question but that doesn't mean science can explain why we exist or what the meaning/purpose of life is. There is an absolute limit to what science can do.

Only if we assume there is intention behind all processes. My main gripe with the 'why' sphere is that it already loads the conclusion in to the premesis, namely that all things/processes necessarily have meaning. Hopefully you can understand that, just as I see no inherent meaning in weather patterns, rock formations or the occurence of sun spots, so too do I see no inherent meaning for greater cosmological processes, such as supernovas, supermassive blackholes and indeed even the beginning of the universe. The why for all of these is simply how, I believe they should simply be conflated in to one descriptive comprehension. Asking why assumes sentient agency, but as we can see from many natural processes on earth there is no actual agency, merely a descriptive process that just is.

It could explain how all observable/detectable process work. It can't provide a reason for any of it.

See above, I moved from seeing agency in all things as you do, to realising that many things that religion has claimed agency for (tidal patterns, storms, illness etc) in fact have no agency, simply naturalistic explanations. As a moderate you appear to ascribe to more or less the same fundamental timescale of events (age of the universe, evolution through natural selection etc) as most of us do, I just simply go one step further and remove that last instance of proposed agency from the start of the existence question. I'm glad we can at least agree on most things though, if i'm not mistaken. You must understand we get some very fundamental theists here who insist on young earths, young universes, no evolutionary processes etc.

It has demonstrated that disease and sickness isn't caused by demons or entering the body and various other things like that but that's really just pre-science folk superstition rather than religion proper.

Still you've evaded my question here, which is what criteria do you use for rejecting the bits that are purely human inference, whilst still retaining the elements from the stories that aren't human inventions and are the divine bits. If the bible isn't completely the word of god, and only partially, how do you know which bits are which?

No it just gives you a better understanding of how the physical universe and natural processes operate it hasn't really done anything to bother God.

But it doesn't really complement any science or further any understanding. Religion has basically made no in-roads in to any understanding since its inception, that is, its position has remained largely constant on most matters for many centuries. All scientific discoveries have taken place in spite of religion, never as a direct result of it. sure, religious people have furthered science, but only using the scientific method. No later demonstrated facts have been predicted through revelation, at least nothing specific that can defy all belief. If Jesus or Mohammed had crapped out the theory of relativity or explained (albeit briefly) the features of RNA then we'd have some serious shit to contend with, but instead all we've got is 'God made the first man out of some clay, or a bloody clot, or some dust' and 'salt water can't mix with fresh water' which forwards nothing. I don't see how religion gives us a better understanding about anything, it simply reasserts what it has always asserted, namely the primacy of religious scripture and the correctness of one's religion over any others.

He occupies and fills all coordinates being both omnipresence and immanent. The Quran describes God as being closer to you than your jugular vein which I suppose is one of the good passages in there. It's not like the Mormon God who lives on the planet Kolob.

But that is too vague. It is conveniently unspecific. If he is everywhere, in all space-time coordinates, that he surely is physical from the outset, else he is nowhere. If he's thus more of a pantheist unifying energy, he is still operating on the turf of science. If he is completely unverifiable then we have no evidence for him, and he is simply Carl Sagan's garage dragan and Bertrand Russell's celestial tea pot. A hypothesis that attempts to explain everything whilst being unverifiable is just useless at understanding how, and at best irrelevant to understanding why (if there even is a why).

Of course he is a purposeful intelligence much like ourselves. That's why the universe and life have a purpose because it's God who has this to begin with.

So he's everywhere, perfect, but has needs? These don't go together, rationally speaking. To be perfect is to be without flaw or need, surely? To have so many human characteristics simply suggests to me that he is made in man's image, rather than vica versa. If something is maximally perfect then it surely doesn't require a purpose or a need, else it is incomplete and still seeking fullfillment.

A miracle wouldn't be a suspension of the physical laws the universe would be constructed in such a way to allow such events to take place within the context of the physical laws God creates. Say for instance you broke your leg and someone was able to mend it back together by holding their hand over it or something like that there would be some kind of energy or processes that would allow for this effect to take place.

Then the energy beam should be projected from one coordinate to another. It should be measurable. Even if not, the cellular regeneration of the bone should be observable and recordable, pending further enquiry.

While materialistic science is skeptical of these things there are certainly many strange, unusual and unexplained occurrences people have experienced the over the years. The universe could well be a far stranger place than you could ever imagine, not that it isn't strange enough anyway. That's not to say you should believe everything you hear and read but you can keep a more open mind.

Yeah many people have claimed jedi powers over the centuries. Mother Theresa etc, virtually none of them have ever opted to demonstrate their powers for testing, usually with the old "vulgar display of power" excuse, yet they will freely flaunt these powers to the converted (apparently) such as miracle healing etc. Surely, to convince the sceptics, it would be better to subject miracle powers to rigorous testing so that these things that 'science can't explain' can blow science out of the water. If on the other hand they can't be measured by science, and are thus unvarifiable, then how do you know anything is happening at all? Science requires a keenly open mind, we must accept at every step that our hypothesis is completely wrong, the history of electromagnetism is a great example of individuals accepting that they were completely mistaken with their initial hypothesese (sp?). Science declares from the outset quite clearly what would prove a theory wrong, religion conceeds no such weakness, it is eternally correct yet eternally unverifiable.

He doesn't really have anything in storage, not physically anyway. We're just talking pure consciousness without a material form.

I thought you said he was everywhere.

They would but you're talking about some kind of physically existent God which doesn't exist. Well God physically existed as Jesus who would be scientifically detectable but he would have only be detectable as an ordinary human.

Until he started raising zombies, then zombifying himself, and doing all the other miracles. If only those things could be performed now, in the presence of video recorders and measuring equipment.

Sure I guess but all you will have is an unexplained and bizarre event that could possibly have some other explanation that is nothing to do with God. So God is still going to remain beyond the bounds of what science can answer.

Again, he's got all the answers but we can't verify him

Everything science explains would become part of science and anything science can't explain would remain outside of science forever. God isn't part of what science can explain because God isn't physically detectable or measurable.

And thus unverifable. Sorry to keep coming back to this, but you say there's no evidence for him cus we can't test him, but then there is scripture which is a form of evidence (for you). A social science is still a science (think Psychology, Sociology etc). You're still claiming there is some form of evidence, albeit historical written evidence rather than demonstratable energy at work. Again, if he's not detectable or mesurable, then how do we know he's there, and how can we be forgiven for concluding that he is no mroe likely than Carl Sagan's garage dragon or Bertrand's celestial teapot?

Considering all that what they ended up producing was an impressive feat, way beyond even the most technologically advanced and civilized people who were still worshiping pieces of carved wood and stone at the time. The idea is that God appointed them but not something can prove scientifically.

Well, christianity wasn't the first monotheistic religion, and given the vast numbers of primitive human populations (we're talking small tribal units at the dawn of man) it's entirely possible that even a minority of them had some form of monotheistic view of the world, they simply didn't produce anything that survived the test of time. Ironically, most jesus fans worship pieces of carved wood and stone to this day, they are just painted with a beard and a sad face, or some wings, or something. I find that quite primitive.

There are many other revelations of God in the world but the Bible/Torah I would say is a particularly good one as it one that was shared by an entire historical culture and community of people. Most of the time a revelation is centred on a single man in cave or under a bodhi tree or whatever. When you get to Jesus and the NT again you have an event that effect a whole community in some fashion, we can be clear that there was a group of people involved who collectively had a profound experience of some kind involving a teacher they called Jesus or Yeshua. Though if someone want to claim that the Quran or whatever is the better revelation that's fine with me, it is a faith after all you can't say certain who has the best and most accurate source material. But certainly the Bible has a great deal going for it.

A history of a people, albeit with wild claims (such as prophets living to 300 years old and people parting the ways) are surely truly indications of the beliefs and imaginations of primitive peoples in the abscence of better information about their surroundings? A history book doesn't automatically prove divine origin. Many individuals profoundly changed their communities, some of them claimed to have special powers and others didn't. What criteria am I supposed to use to chose Jesus as the right one and save myself a life of eternal torture in hell?

Either there is revelation from God or there isn't. You can't prove or disprove this either way scientifically therefore it's a question of belief.

You seem like a nice guy, and i'm happy you acknowledged the massive role assigned to faith here. I just don't understand what criteria thinking people are supposed to use to conclude that a desert book is way more special than others, particularly when you admit yourself that none of it can be proven (and thus non of it constitutes evidence of itself).

You can come to understand the existence of God through general revelation that's through deductive reasoning and so on. The philosophers of ancient Greece living in a polytheistic culture did something this. The Bible is an example of a special revelation which gives you details about God and his character that would be unobtainable to human reason alone. You don't necessarily just read the Bible and then just believe what it say without question that woulds be a blind faith.

But nothing in the bible can't be thought up and described by any of us here. Someone had to do it first, obviously, and indeed the Greeks and the Hindus applied many of the same attributes to a potential deity that the christians and jews did. Again, it's really not that unique. Human reason is easily capable of conceptualising vague and unverifiable ideas such as 'eternity' and 'present everywhere'. It's precisely that they are so vague that leads me to conclude that these ideas truly did originate in human minds alone.

Even in secular academic circles the Bible is regarded as a great work of literature, even Richard Dawkins admires it. These weren't ignorant fools by any means.

Yeah it's got some nice bits, worthy of admiration. But some of the moral lessons (particularly in the OT) are truly abhorrent and are certainly not worthy of respect imho (inherited sin, giving your daughter up for gang bang rape sessions etc).

You can't do that with God because he isn't an object.

If he's not a thing then he's just another word for the universe; it is the sum-total of all things. If he is in any way seperate and unique (ie he stands out from other things) then he is surely a thing. If he is so far beyond the universe that indeed the universe is not the sum-total of all things, then there is another medium greater than the universe that god (and our universe) is contained within, and god is still a thing within something else. Otherwise, god cannot interact with the universe if it is not a thing that can be isolated and defined.

Yes but it's still finite in space and time, old and vast though it is. You will still require an eternal context.

it could all just be chance

Written by humans who had some kind of special Covenant with God. Again this is something that is beyond the scope of science to prove or disprove it isn't a scientific question. This isn't a claim you can show to be false.

Again, if its unverifable you can hardly blame people for rejecting it, yet we're still expected to burn in hell for utterly refusing god's word.

You may be a more incredible proposition in place of God if you're not careful, at least God gives the universe, consciousness and life some kind of a framework or a context. Otherwise you're looking at infinite monkeys on calculators mashing the buttons and that just happened to produce all the correct mathematical calculations for construction a life sustaining universe. I'm not quite sold on the monkeys I think God is better more straightforward way of producing the results and you also get to have some kind of answer to the why and not just the how.

Chance is fine by me. God is anything but straightforward as far as i'm concerned, he is infinitely complex and requires some serious explaining, ideally by way of evidential support.

[quote]

You may not have made the effort to support your faith with reason which is fatal to faith if you're going to scientifically/historically educate yourself to a decent level, particularly in our Western post-Enlightenment post Darwin culture. A simple or ill informed faith doesn't really survive any level of battering or doubt. [/quote[

It was precisely my introduction to the realm of science that led me away from religious education. Since working in pathology labs for years I came to fully appreciate the importance of weighting up evidence. A book from the desert, in your own words, can't be proven or disproven. It's unverifable, and thus not much help for furthering understanding.