The fine tuning argument

[LastPoet]

The way I look at it, proponents of this 'fine 'tunning' are arguing from an ignorance stance, and creating a reverse argument... Let me try to explain in simple terms: Life appeared a long time after the universe already existed, its the other way around, the Universe isn't 'fine-tuned', Life tries to tune itself to the universe, giving way to the evolutionary processes we all know (natural selection, etc)

If the universe was fine tuned to life as claimed, we would have life in EVERY planet, everywhere, its as simple as that...

[downbeatplumb]

Solja you've got your maths upside down, you have made very likely things seem unlikely.

Imagine this you're walking down the road, you see a number plate on a random passing car say, h07 249, you say 'now what was the chances of me seeing that particular number plate'?

The fact is that if the universe was different enough for life to not exist then we wouldnt be having this discussion.
This does not mean that god set laws of physics. We dont know what did, but it is classic god of the gaps to make it yahwehs work.

And you see this as strong evidence for god! thats a big fail I'm afraid.

[solja247]

If the universe wasn't in a position to support life, this argument wouldn't exist, because life wouldn't exist.

Douglas Adams parodied this argument:

So far we are the only inteligent beings, in this universe to contemplate existence and other complicated questions...

Put simply, the only reason we consider this to be an argument is because we are here, and we can't exist if the universe were somehow tuned some other way. It doesn't mean the universe was tuned *for us*; it just means that we are possible because the universe is like this.

You are getting your arguements mixed up. The Arthmophic principle is about the Earth appears to be designed for us (Earth is the only planet with water in all three forms). However, the fine tuning arguement is about if the parameters were out just a little bit no elements or universe would exist today. No stars, black holes, planets etc, the fine tuning arguement is compelling...

To repeat myself from an earlier post today: The teleological argument is one of the oldest and most thoroughly refuted arguments for the existence of God.There is no consensus on the proposition.

No one has refuted it. Dawkins attempted to refute it in, 'The God Dellusion' However, most philosophers dont take any of his arguements seriously. After all, when we talk about origins, we are talking about philosophy, not science. Although, science can help our belief in how the universe began...

Null argument, if the universal constants were different all it would mean is that some other kind of life would have arisen. There is NO requirement for our kind of life to exist.

No life or simple elements like, Hydrogen...

I think he's right in saying Dawkins says he dosen't contend the universe APPEARS to be designed, but he then conveniently ignores that when Dawkins says that it is only as a starting point to go onto his "who created the creator" argument. Good old out of context, creationist/ID misquoting at it's best.

I did not misquote him! I never said he believed the universe had been designed. I said he doesnt contend the fact, that the universe appears to be designed, a big difference mate!

It refutes design becuase it says "gee look on the universe could be hugely different if any of these parameters varied by even the smallest fraction". This ignores the fact that if true, the so called Design of the universe is fundamentally flawed becuase its therefore hugely fragile and an omnipotent creator would have been able to creaste something more robust and more likely to lead to the result intended. Still a problem for those proposing the argument and not for the alternative hypotheses on the universe.

I dont see your point? Or how you refute the fine tuning arguement. Your areguement goes like this:
God should of created the universe like X
The universe is Y
Therefore God didnt create the universe because the universe is Y

Other forms of life might have arisen.

Like what?
Martians?

[lrh9]

Blah blah blah. You're arguments are wrong. Go back to the drawing board.

[solja247]

Solja you've got your maths upside down, you have made very likely things seem unlikely.

Imagine this you're walking down the road, you see a number plate on a random passing car say, h07 249, you say 'now what was the chances of me seeing that particular number plate'?

The fact is that if the universe was different enough for life to not exist then we wouldnt be having this discussion.
This does not mean that god set laws of physics. We dont know what did, but it is classic god of the gaps to make it yahwehs work.

And you see this as strong evidence for god! thats a big fail I'm afraid.

It isnt God of the gaps fallacy. Many things have been disproven by modern science, however, for some reason, they still cant disprove God, or that God could of been behind the universe. Either you believe something was behind the universe, or nothing was behind the universe...Not a God of the gaps fallacy.

Fine tuning arguement is more like this; Imagine one day you are walking down the streets of New York and you hear a couple of people asking why American is a super power. 'America is a super power because intelligent and hardworking people brought her up to be as powerful as she is now.' you hear someone say. Another person says, 'America became a super power by chance! It wasnt about intelligence or hardworking.' You keep on walking shaking your head at the possibility of USA's status coming from mere chance.

Thats a better way to see the fine tuning arguement...

---

Blah blah blah. You're arguments are wrong. Go back to the drawing board.

I dont normally respond to trolls or spammers. However, I challenge you.

[Entropist]

"A conscious fruit fly would have to confront the exactly the same difficulties, the same kind of insoluble problems as man." E.M. Cioran

[lrh9]

However, I challenge you.

To a duel?

[Tiberius]

So far we are the only inteligent beings, in this universe to contemplate existence and other complicated questions...

...that we know of. We know very little about the other planets in our solar system...let alone the rest of the galaxy, or the universe. You cannot justify your blanket statement about the rest of the universe in any meaningful way.

What you said here is like having a warehouse filled with a billion coloured balls, you picking up a single ball, seeing that it is green, and then declaring "there are no other green balls in this warehouse". You cannot justify that statement unless you look at all the other balls.

You are getting your arguements mixed up. The Arthmophic principle is about the Earth appears to be designed for us (Earth is the only planet with water in all three forms). However, the fine tuning arguement is about if the parameters were out just a little bit no elements or universe would exist today. No stars, black holes, planets etc, the fine tuning arguement is compelling...

The difference is irrelevant. In both arguments, humans would not exist if the variable were slightly different, and therefore the argument wouldn't exist. It is precisely the same as the puddle waking up one morning and thinking the hole in the ground had been made for him, since he fits in it so perfectly. All the fine-tuning argument tells us is that either the universe was designed *for* us, or we are simply a result of the universe being the way it is. It doesn't prove either possibility, and is therefore a useless argument in the first place...hardly "compelling".

[Captain Scarlet]

No one has refuted it. Dawkins attempted to refute it in, 'The God Dellusion' However, most philosophers dont take any of his arguements seriously. After all, when we talk about origins, we are talking about philosophy, not science. Although, science can help our belief in how the universe began...

Not true and a bit bombastic but if you don't like Dawkins populist approach try proper philosophers: For a general refutaion of any design argument David Humes classic work is a great read. He devestates any argument from design. In more recent times: Quentin Smith (1992), Theodore Drange (1998), Paul Draper (2008) have refuted the fine tuning argument.

Almost all design arguments for God are based on analogies to humans.
- For older civilisations: Humans move objects, objects in nature move, and so these objects must be moved by an invisible intelligence or designer.
- For the 19th century theologian William Paley, the analogy was this: Humans make watches which are complex, objects in nature are complex, and so objects in nature must have been made by an invisible intelligence or designer.
- Hugh Ross has done the same thing with fine tuning and the analogy is this: Humans fine-tune their machines for a purpose, values of the universe’s physical constants are extremely improbable but consistent with the existence of human life, therefore the universe must have been finely-tuned by a hidden super intelligent agent for the purpose of producing humans.

I dont see your point? Or how you refute the fine tuning arguement. Your areguement goes like this:
God should of created the universe like X
The universe is Y
Therefore God didnt create the universe because the universe is Y

Thats not the point. Allow my re-state to try and clarify. To need to fine tune anything implies that the design is flawed in the first place ergo no design. Fine tuning refutes its main purpose to provide evidence of deisgn.

Your claim is the there are 20+ constants which are tuned precisely to allow mankind to exist. But an all powerful diety can make it possible that there are no constants at all to fine tune and that the whole universe is conducive to life. As far as we know the 99.9999999999..etc% of the universe is hostile to us. Why is this so if design is at play? This is similar to a designer creating an earth where only 1 room in the only house, on the only bit of land could be lived in by humans.

[LastPoet]

So, solja247, if the universe is fine tuned for life why there isn't life everywhere on the universe? (pay attention to the bolded 'fine') It should be there, alot of life in the universe, everywhere huh?