Fine tuning argument assessed

[Sword of Christ]

There's no evidence for other universes besides this one and if there were other universes they could all support life and/or intelligence of some kind for all we know and all have been created by God seeing as they are all effects of a cause one single eternal cause can cover all effects that ever occur. The fine tuning argument just points out the contingency, complexity and rational comprehensibility of the universe, it isn't really a seething chaos even if it has some unpredictability.

[max-greece]

...and all have been created by God seeing as they are all effects of a cause....

Lets not introduce other flawed theist arguments on top of this one at this stage.

Suffice to say:

1. We do not no how or if causality applies outside of this universe.
2. Causality would have to apply differently for God to be the answer.
3. You have no way of eliminating multiple causes either individually or several causes working in tandem.
4. God merely adds a non-functional additional layer of complexity where it is not required.
5. The whole point of this discussion is that we can eliminate the apparent need for God as the explanation on the basis of the probability argument.

[Esquilax]

I'm not sure this is a valid repudiation of the argument - although it is itself a valid point.

The theist might turn around and say to you:

"No - I am not arguing from the POV of a creator. I am arguing from random chance. I am also not arguing from the POV that there is a point to the universe, nor that we are the point. What I am saying is that the universe exists and we are a product of it (even a by-product) but the chances of that happening are 1 in 10^500. That is such an unlikely outcome that I believe the creator argument is the least unlikely answer."

The theist could say that, though to my mind it'd be a fairly weak argument; if we're already accepting that the current state of the universe could be produced by chance, then positing an additional layer to the formation of the universe, sans any evidence for that layer beyond the probability argument itself, can hardly be considered a more likely outcome, surely. With no evidence to speak of, adding an additional layer of complexity would actually make god less likely an answer than the simplest one, which is chance.

What's more likely, that a landslide happened via natural unguided means, or that an all powerful god caused the landslide to happen? That specific landslide, in that specific location, hitting that specific pattern of homes, is so unlikely an outcome, after all!

[WesOlsen]

There's no evidence for other universes besides this one

That's not strictly true: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...c-map.html

It is difficult to test at the moment due to the obvious physical constraints regarding how far we can see and travel, hence it is confined to an existing wider framework of physics. However, it's also worth noting that there's no evidence for god either.

and if there were other universes they could all support life and/or intelligence of some kind for all we know and all have been created by God seeing as they are all effects of a cause one single eternal cause can cover all effects that ever occur.

If there were an infinite number of universes, a great many of them would almost certainly not be able to support any sort of life, assuming the values of gravity, strong force, weak force etc were varied significantly. Causal regress arguments reside at the very apex of nothingness. They are lazy and aren't based on anything experimental whatsoever. Either your criteria are clear for selection and rejection of things that don't require causes, or they aren't (as is currently the case). If one thing can be uncaused then potentially other things can be uncaused, and the 'chance' behind matter and anti-matter materialising is greater than that of a fully formed and functional super creature materialising from nothing, unless you've got a handy Darwinian explanation for the life-cycle of god. Basically, there are few widely circulated ideas with less evidence than multiverse theory, but religion is one of them.

The fine tuning argument just points out the contingency, complexity and rational comprehensibility of the universe, it isn't really a seething chaos even if it has some unpredictability.

Supermassive black holes are pretty chaotic, imho.

[LostLocke]

This will be a TL : DR for most of you I guess. Sadly - no real way of shortening it.

"The probability of a universe existing that supports us is 1 in 10^500. The most likely explanation of such an unlikely event happening is God."

Hmmm.....

1. Probability. Dangerous ground. One of the hardest concepts to grasp in terms of assessing whether or not your calculated value actually means anything.

I could be wrong on this, and correct me if I am, but from what I remember from math classes (which is not much ), probability doesn't work if you can't determine what the possible outcomes are.

For example, if I told everyone I just rolled a 5, what was the probability of that, many would say 1 in 6, assuming I rolled a standard die once.
But, I never said I only rolled the normal 1d6, it might be 2d6 or 4d6 or 2d12 or 4d4+1 or....etc etc.
With out knowing the sides of the die/dice, the number of dice, the number of rolls made, or any modifiers to that total, there's no way to give any probability for the '5' I said I rolled.

Applying that to the universe, we don't know how many universes there are, what the exact conditions that were needed for this universe to come into being, etc etc.... So, there is no real probability for this to happen in the first place.


Is that about right?

[FreeTony]

In short: Anyone making this argument probably doesn't understand Bayes Theorem.

Expanded a little:
When dealing with probablity problems like this you have to also assess the probablility of the alternative hypothesis, in this case a God existing and creating a universe. I'm not sure this is even possible (and it's not the only alternative hypothesis).

In the same way imagine someone seeing a flash of light in their car, in the middle of nowhere. This is a pretty unlikely event. However you can't then just conclude that because it is very unlikely, it was therefore an alien visitor. You have to assess the probability of an alien visitor coming along as well.

The probability that the light is not an alien visitor, but something cause by an unknown reason (probability1) is much much greater than that of an alien visitor (probability2). It doesn't matter that p1 is very very small. It is still much larger than p2, which is the important part.

Most of the time you can't even assess these probabilities, which makes any comparison meaningless, and hence the argument is also void. Interestingly a lot of these supernatural type arguments are of this form (e.g. hearing a noise in a haunted house and concluding a ghost).

Sadly probability mathematics is very poorly understood by the majority of people, yet it is crucial to making deductions about reality. Common sense just doesn't cut it on these occasions.

[Sword of Christ]

1. We do not no how or if causality applies outside of this universe.

Outside the universe you have God, though he's within the universe as well. Transcendent to the creation and immanent within it which is a good Biblical understanding though compatible which many other beliefs.

2. Causality would have to apply differently for God to be the answer.

God is the underlying context for existence, else nothing would exist at all. So you think things can exist for no reason at all but that's a point of view you can have, I'd disagree.

3. You have no way of eliminating multiple causes either individually or several causes working in tandem.

Just have one eternal self contained cause for everything whats the problem with that? If there's a problem with this premise feel free to point it out.

4. God merely adds a non-functional additional layer of complexity where it is not required.

So the universe just came intro existence out of nothing no reason and we're some kind an accident? Seems a bit like unlikely to me.

5. The whole point of this discussion is that we can eliminate the apparent need for God as the explanation on the basis of the probability argument.

The probability of intelligence noticing that the universe they live in is suitable for life is 100% either way. So it's just a question of what is the best and most valid context for it all. And God is the best context is God. There is the question of what God and what we know about him so you'll need some revelation of course but that's a different subject.

[Tonus]

I think that the simplest way to deal with the fine-tuning argument is to ask: if god had tuned the universe differently, would he be unable to create life? If so, he is limited by some external factor, and now we have an additional step to regress. If not, then the universe does not require fine-tuning at all, so it's a poor argument to make for the existence of a creator.

[Esquilax]

So the universe just came intro existence out of nothing no reason and we're some kind an accident? Seems a bit like unlikely to me.

Yeah, the magic of an all seeing space wizard is much more likely.

You aren't one for actually demonstrating the assertions you make, are you Sword?

[Sword of Christ]

That's not strictly true: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...c-map.html

It's a potential explanation for evidence of something, not that the whole premise multiple layers of reality and existence is particularly something religion has been set against anyway. If anything that would somewhat be the idea, there's much more going on than only the stuff we can immediately see and far more than than our science understands or possibly could ever understand.

It is difficult to test at the moment due to the obvious physical constraints regarding how far we can see and travel, hence it is confined to an existing wider framework of physics. However, it's also worth noting that there's no evidence for god either.

You can't prove the existence of God with science so you have to use other kinds of evidence. You have revelation, you have the Holy Spirit.



You have rational arguments for Gods existence as well of course, some good convincing arguments on offer.

If there were an infinite number of universes, a great many of them would almost certainly not be able to support any sort of life

If they are all part of the existence God has deliberately created for a purpose/function then they naturally all would all contain beings consciousness and will. It would seem a bit wasteful otherwise, unless waste universes are required as part of the system. But this is all fine to speculate about it won't really prove anything either way.

Either your criteria are clear for selection and rejection of things that don't require causes, or they aren't (as is currently the case). If one thing can be uncaused then potentially other things can be uncaused

You have one thing that lacks a cause, this thing is God, and everything else is caused by this by this initial aspect of existence. There's nothing wrong this premise as far as I can tell. Otherwise you're saying things can simply happen for no reason or explanation at all.

, and the 'chance' behind matter and anti-matter materialising is greater than that of a fully formed and functional super creature materialising from nothing, unless you've got a handy Darwinian explanation for the life-cycle of god.

God doesn't have a life cycle he's just the reason why we have life cycles and cosmological cycles and everything else that happens and goes on. He created all of that and that's the reason why all of this exists. The Good Book will fill you in on some of the details of the relationship between Creator and his creatures, your eternal salvation from sin and your inner knowledge of good and evil and all that business. All the stuff science doesn't cover right here.

Basically, there are few widely circulated ideas with less evidence than multiverse theory, but religion is one of them.

Religion is compatible with multiverse theory so there isn't a problem. Science gives you the how and religion the why.

Supermassive black holes are pretty chaotic, imho.

They only help to provide physical structure for entire galaxies of stars without them life may not even exist. There's an interesting book on the subject of black holes I'm reading atm.




This is a book of pure science/physics with no mention of religion of God or religion at all so you may be interested in it.