The fine tuning argument

[socratation]

For the universe (multiverse?) to arrive by chance is astronomical! Its pretty much impossible . Since our understanding of the universe is becoming even more complicated, saying it was a chance, is becoming less probable.

M theory, a real mathematical theory, implies that there are other universes or "branes" with different fundamental laws. If there is one more it is likely to think there is an infinite number of universes with differing fundamental laws. If this is the case, and considering this theory is based on sound mathematical principle there's no reason to think it isn't, then simply by chance it is INEVITIBLE that this exact universe occurred, if it didn't we wouldn't be here to observe it . In fact, if the multiverse is infinite, then this exact universe with this exact forum post occurred an infinite number of times.

Thus, this real, fair dinkum, mathematically sound physical theory provides an answer to the "goldilocks" argument which is entirely consistent with known physical laws and empirical evidence. Such an explanation is intrinsically superior than God because by its very definition "god" is supernatural and violates the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#M-theory

I dont want to say this proves God exists, but it is rather compelling, really compelling in my opinion. What do you guys have to say?

I think its a poor argument.

Note: Dont try to use Occam's razor here. Occam's razor removes multiverses and other theories in modern physics and astronomy.

How on earth does Occum's razor remove established concepts in theoretical physics? If it did they wouldn't be established concepts. Do you even understand what Occum's Razor is? Its a way of choosing between rival hypothesis not ruling whether something is likely or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occums_razor

[tackattack]

The laws of physics hold true only in observations of the past.
The past does not dictate the future because of the continuing complexity derivative of Cause and effect.
To assume the laws of physics will be true in the future a stable platform with which to base the assertion is necessary.
Observable human history is neither long enough nor reliable enough to be considered stable to support an axiom of that magnitude
The continuation of the laws of physics then rest on the start of the universe
Within the universe on a macro scale every effect has a cause,
Therefore the laws of phyisics have and need a signular, stable cause to coninue in the future
Due to the subjectivity of observation the most stable cause would rest outside the universe
If something is outside the universe it is unobservable unless it can effect within the universe
God is a singular source outside the universe that is reported to have effects within the universe , and is a probable solution


Here's a first atempt with all I have time for.. I know it's weak.. have at it.

[downbeatplumb]

The laws of physics hold true only in observations of the past.
The past does not dictate the future because of the continuing complexity derivative of Cause and effect.
To assume the laws of physics will be true in the future a stable platform with which to base the assertion is necessary.
Observable human history is neither long enough nor reliable enough to be considered stable to support an axiom of that magnitude
The continuation of the laws of physics then rest on the start of the universe
Within the universe on a macro scale every effect has a cause,
Therefore the laws of phyisics have and need a signular, stable cause to coninue in the future
Due to the subjectivity of observation the most stable cause would rest outside the universe
If something is outside the universe it is unobservable unless it can effect within the universe
God is a singular source outside the universe that is reported to have effects within the universe , and is a probable solution


Here's a first atempt with all I have time for.. I know it's weak.. have at it.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

[theVOID]

In my opinion, the fine tuning arguement, is one of the strongest theist arguements and it makes a lot of sense as well. No serious scientist (not even Dawkins) contends the fact that the universe appears to be designed.

The universe has a specific set of parameters therefore god?



Come back when you get a clue.

[Skipper]

God is a singular source outside the universe that is reported to have effects within the universe , and is a probable solution

How is god probable?! Especially the Christian god I assume you are talking about?!?! I can report that my idea of a god that I just made up has had effects within the universe. Why should your claim be taken any more seriously than mine?

[Captain Scarlet]

The laws of physics hold true only in observations of the past.The past does not dictate the future because of the continuing complexity derivative of Cause and effect.To assume the laws of physics will be true in the future a stable platform with which to base the assertion is necessary. Observable human history is neither long enough nor reliable enough to be considered stable to support an axiom of that magnitude. The continuation of the laws of physics then rest on the start of the universe. Within the universe on a macro scale every effect has a cause, Therefore the laws of phyisics have and need a signular, stable cause to coninue in the future. Due to the subjectivity of observation the most stable cause would rest outside the universe. If something is outside the universe it is unobservable unless it can effect within the universe. God is a singular source outside the universe that is reported to have effects within the universe , and is a probable solution. Here's a first atempt with all I have time for.. I know it's weak.. have at it.

This is beneath you tacky. Weak does it too much justice. This makes god more probable than gravity.

However it is wild speculation and mysticism to assert a superntural realm, and a being residing in it which can, by something akin to magic, interact with the material realm without leaving any evidence.

[theVOID]

The laws of physics hold true only in observations of the past.

False, they hold true in the present too, and can be used to predict the future.

Also, certain laws of nature where not always there, many have arisen contingent upon a more fundamental law of nature. The laws that emerged from inflation were not always there, for example all relativistic laws are contingent upon frames of reference in spacetime, so before the emergence of spacetime relativistic laws were not applicable.

The past does not dictate the future because of the continuing complexity derivative of Cause and effect.

This makes no sense. If everything in spacetime is causal then everything in spacetime is determined, regardless of how complex the interactions become.

If there are acausal causers in the universe then the past does not determine the future, it only informs the majority of it.

To assume the laws of physics will be true in te future a stable platform with which to base the assertion is necessary.

Wrong again, to assume the laws of physics will remain constant does not require a logical necessity, just an informed probability.

Firstly, there are in fact some proposed phenomenon that necessitate the laws be constant, such as the initial conditions.

Secondly, Even without such necessity we can still assume the laws are constant due to reliability. Due to the reliability of the measurements yielding identical results and no mechanism by which the results could be made different, we can reasonably conclude that they will continue to be constant.

Observable human history is neither long enough nor reliable enough to be considered stable to support an axiom of that magnitude

So if our most stable and reliable axiom is not stable and reliable enough, what is left to propose? A less stable and reliable axiom?

The continuation of the laws of physics then rest on the start of the universe

Firstly, your argument is all over the place, I don't know if this is because of all the false premises it contains or because you hastily scraped it together.

What exactly do you mean by "The continuation of the laws of physics then rest on the start of the universe"

Within the universe on a macro scale every effect has a cause,

Agreed.

Therefore the laws of phyisics have and need a signular, stable cause to coninue in the future

*facepalm*

Large scale events are subject to cause and effect because the quantum indifference tends to wash out. The quantum laws still allow indeterminacy and uncertainty, but the laws themselves are still constant.

Due to the subjectivity of observation the most stable cause would rest outside the universe

This is a complete nonsense statement.

The fact that observations are subjective does not mean the universe needs an external cause.

The mathematics that determines such an event is no subjective.

Also this is contingent upon one of the false premises, the idea that the universe was caused. Space time was cause, but spacetime arose from energy, and that is neither created nor destroyed (first law thermodynamics) so a cause for a universe (keeping in mind causation requires time) is a meaningless idea.

If something is outside the universe it is unobservable unless it can effect within the universe
God is a singular source outside the universe that is reported to have effects within the universe , and is a probable solution

So your hypothesis should be testable. Where does he interact? in what way? What are the results?

This should make your hypothesis falsifiable as if God is shown not to interact then your conception of him is false.

Also, all you have done is asserted that a god exists, and then claimed that this assertion is probable even though you have no evidence. Did you mean possible? I'd say maybe it's possible but probable? Certainly not.

Here's a first atempt with all I have time for.. I know it's weak.. have at it.

It's really bad

[solja247]

How on earth does Occum's razor remove established concepts in theoretical physics? If it did they wouldn't be established concepts. Do you even understand what Occum's Razor is? Its a way of choosing between rival hypothesis not ruling whether something is likely or not.

People like Dawkins argue that something less complicated could of created the universe, because if God created the universe, then you have something even more compliacted than the universe...Thats what I mean with Occam's razor...

The universe has a specific set of parameters therefore god?



Come back when you get a clue.

Not at all. Therefore MOST LIKELY a Creator (God). We will never know if God does/does not exist, although it makes it more likely God exists...

---

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.

Fine tuned not only for life but also elements, galaxies and stars. What would happen, if the universe consisted of the Sun, Earth and the moon? We shouldnt take a reductionists approach to the cosmos...

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

In my opinion, the fine tuning arguement, is one of the strongest theist arguements and it makes a lot of sense as well. No serious scientist (not even Dawkins) contends the fact that the universe appears to be designed.
For the universe (multiverse?) to arrive by chance is astronomical! Its pretty much impossible . Since our understanding of the universe is becoming even more complicated, saying it was a chance, is becoming less probable.
I dont want to say this proves God exists, but it is rather compelling, really compelling in my opinion.
What do you guys have to say?

The fine tuning arguement has a few problems - many of these have been addressed already by Adrian and others, but I'm going to give this a go.
First of all, even if the chance of a life-giving universe were so small that only the most powerful supercomputer aided by the greatest mathematicians in the modern world could calculate this number, the fact that it can arise at all means it can produce observers, such as us. What that means is that if there's a chance at all, the likelyhood of one such occurring is still going to make a universe with life in it.
The same arguement could be done concerning life on other planets and life on this planet.

Second, scientists don't say that life or the universe arose by chance.

Third, I'm not personally aware of Dawkins saying anything to that effect, but even if he did it doesn't mean he believes that the universe was 'designed' or 'built' in that sense.

Finally, the likelyhood or unlikelyhood of something occurring isn't compelling evidence of anything. Frankly, I rarely see giraffes, even in many of my local zoos. I only hear about them on television and in books and magazines. They are also beautiful, graceful african creatures. That doesn't mean they were designed and built in ancient times by african scientists to fool the white people.

That's why this arguement is essentially not an arguement for god or even 'begging the question.'

[Captain Scarlet]

[quote='solja247' pid='95358' dateline='1285118784']

Fine tuned not only for life but also elements, galaxies and stars. What would happen, if the universe consisted of the Sun, Earth and the moon? We shouldnt take a reductionists approach to the cosmos...

Well first you have to prove design and you haven't. Then you need to show why it is mankind that is the object of the design and not black holes. What non theological evidence can you offer?