Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 09-05-2002, 01:40 PM

Gang,

There have been alot of posts about fine tuning lately...most of which (IMO) have either been inaccurate or misrepresented. The majority of my posts about FTA have been about clearing up misunderstandings about the argument and what one can infer probabilistically from it. So I thought I would layout the FTA how most modern thesits see it and 2 or 3 common fallacies that seem to occur in the athiest camp.

Imagine yourself on a sunny caribbean shoreline. Blue sky, blue ocean and as far as the eye can see white sandy beach.
As you are relaxing in your lounge chair someone places a small object in your hand. You look to find that it is a grain of sand. A black grain of sand. You ask yourself 'How was this grain of sand procured? Was it by someone walking along the shore and reaching down and randomly picking up any grain of sand or was it chosen? Was this random or not?

It is highly unlikely that the black grain of sand was randomly selected because the sheer multitude of white grains of sand. So you correctly infer that this black grain of sand was not selected at random but chosen. And in fact, this makes perfect sense. Very few people given a black grain of sand on a white sand beach would think it was randomly selected off the beach.

This scenario represents the fine tuning of the universe. The physical universe has constants that don't seem to be derived from or related to each other in any way. The charges of electrons and protons, the initial rate of expansion of the universe, the mass ratio between neutrons and protons, etc. There is almost an infinite number of possible configurations the universe could have had. This space of all possible configurations of the physical universe is represented by all the sand...the white sandy beach and the black grain of sand you hold. The multitude of universes that couldn't support life are represented by the white grains of sand. The black grain of sand represents a life-friendly universe.

There are 3 specific fallacies of thought that can occur when reasoning about this situation:

1-Selective ignorance...arbitrarily choosing non-distinguishing characteristics
If you wanted you could look at your black grain of sand and declare 'Well, this grain of sand is roughly the same size as all the other grains of sand. It has about the same mass and same texture. It probably is made of the same stuff as the other grains of sand. I see no difference between this grain of sand and the sand on the beach.' Of course this would be ludicrous. It is a fallacy to claim simply because there exists some characteristics that don't differentiate the black grain of sand from the white sand on the beach that it is not distinguishable from them. In short, it would be fallacious to arbitrarily ignore the distinguishing characteristics.

2-Labeling the sand...The Lottery Fallacy
If you wanted you could get a super computer and a laser micro etcher and spend the next 30-40 years sequentially numbering ALL the grains of sand on the beach (including the one your holding) so that each grain would have a tiny little number on it. After numbering all the grains of sand you look at your black grain of sand (suppose the number was 5963811) and declare 'Some grain of sand had to be chosen. The probability of the number 5963811 being selected was just as likely as selecting numbers 20043 or 98100023 or 347111. Therefore there is no reason to conclude that this black grain of sand was not randomly selected.' This is a lottery fallacy and, of course, would also be ludicrous. The fact that you can label the sand does not imply that a black grain of sand is just as likely to be selected as a white grain.

3-Misapplication of the Anthropic Principle
You could, if you so chose, declare 'I should not wonder at how this grain of black sand was procured...if I hadn't been given a black grain of sand I would not be sitting here wondering this!' This, while tautologically true, affords no new meaningful information about the event at hand. Applied to this scenario, the Anthropic Principle would say 'Given that you've been handed a black grain of sand you should not be suprised if you look around and notice ramifications of being handed a black grain of sand.' It is important to note that this is NOT an explanation of how things happened or insight into whether your grain of sand was chosen or not. In short, this simply sidesteps the question altogether.

Anyway, that's the jist of the FTA how I see it.

As always...thoughts and comments welcomed.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

luvluv · 09-05-2002, 02:00 PM

You're very cruel to post this on the day in which Koy is trying to leave.

luvluv · 09-05-2002, 02:10 PM

I don't want to step on your toes here, but I do have an opinion on the whole lottery fallacy thing.

I knew, the other day, that you weren't using the three straight flushes as a direct analogy with FTA.

What I was trying to say is that a lottery was a bad thing to compare the origin of the universe with because in a lottery someone has to win. The universe has no such constraints. It isn't just that the values could have taken any form, it's that there didn't have to be values at all. There didn't have to be a universe at all. Nothing is given. In a lottery, it is a given at the outset that someone will win: it is determined that there will be a drawing and that the drawings will not cease until there is a winner. But if the universe spontaneously burst into existence from nothing, then am I right in thinking there was an infinite number of possible forms it could have taken? If so, this is a much taller order than winning a lottery in which a winner is guaranteed.

I don't know if this adds anything, I just posted it to get some clarification.

eh · 09-05-2002, 02:18 PM

Great post, but you're missing something very important. Allow me to quote you:

It is highly unlikely that the black grain of sand was randomly selected because the sheer multitude of white grains of sand

But what if the black grain was actually only located amoung a mere few other grains of salt. What then would you say? And what if there was only one grain of salt by itself?

There is almost an infinite number of possible configurations the universe could have had.

This is a completely unsupported statement, based on our incomplete understanding of nature. We don't even have a full theory of quantum gravity, let alone a TOE that would allow us to explain what kind of universes are possible. How can we make such claims when we don't even know what is going on at the smallest scales?

It may turn out, that our universe is the only possible configuration, or one of only a few possible worlds. String theory, is one such theory that makes the attempt to eliminate all input variables, and show a mere handful of possible worlds. Until we have a full understanding of the quantum world, there is no justification in claiming there are an infinite number of possible universes.

doubtingt · 09-05-2002, 02:23 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
[QB]Gang,

"Imagine yourself on a sunny caribbean shoreline. Blue sky, blue ocean and as far as the eye can see white sandy beach.
As you are relaxing in your lounge chair someone places a small object in your hand."

----------------------
Right here is where your scenario goes wrong and
has not correspondence to the scenario we face when trying to expain life's origins.
Your scenario includes a "someone" who places it in your hand. You already have direct knowledge that there was a someone with human qualities of
will, intent, etc. Thus, you know it is easily possible that they could have used their will
to intentially pick up a black grain.

Like all those who make this argument you
assume apriori the existence of the very thing
you are trying to prove exist, a willful, intentful entity.
Here is how the proper analogy should read:

You are sitting on a beach and you are the only
intentful being that you have ever known and have no basis to assume any other exists. After an infinite amount of time rolling around in the sand
you notice a black grain right on the tip of your nose. Is it more rational to assume that after
infinite time a black grain eventually, and randomly stuck to the tip of your nose?
Or should you conclude that some willful being whom you have no apriori basis to believe exists,
placed the grain on your nose?

Thomas Metcalf · 09-05-2002, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Gang,

Imagine yourself on a sunny caribbean shoreline. Blue sky, blue ocean and as far as the eye can see white sandy beach.
As you are relaxing in your lounge chair someone places a small object in your hand. You look to find that it is a grain of sand. A black grain of sand. You ask yourself 'How was this grain of sand procured? Was it by someone walking along the shore and reaching down and randomly picking up any grain of sand or was it chosen? Was this random or not?

It is highly unlikely that the black grain of sand was randomly selected because the sheer multitude of white grains of sand. So you correctly infer that this black grain of sand was not selected at random but chosen. And in fact, this makes perfect sense. Very few people given a black grain of sand on a white sand beach would think it was randomly selected off the beach.

I have two points here.

First, we arbitrarily choose that we want blackness to be the distinguishing feature. Every grain of sand will be different. Blackness matters to humans, so it provokes surprise in us. A different grain of sand would matter to a clam, or to an alien, or even to the ocean.

Second, this analogy fails for the same reason Paley's watchmaker analogy fails. We already know that humans are in a position to influence the color of grains of sand, that humans will care about a grain of sand's color, and what it would mean for a human to influence the grain's color, as well as how it might be accomplished -- in fact, we even know that it was chosen by a person already. We do not know that a being was in a position to influence the universe's constants, that a being would care about life, and how a being might influence these constants. This is why the grain of sand resulting from a personal being's influence is somewhat more appealing than the universe resulting from a personal being's influence.

You may also want to refer to my 8/17 post on the subject on <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000546&p=2" target="_blank">this page</a>, which you have not yet answered.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]

Sheep in the big city · 09-05-2002, 03:10 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:

This scenario represents the fine tuning of the universe. The physical universe has constants that don't seem to be derived from or related to each other in any way. The charges of electrons and protons, the initial rate of expansion of the universe, the mass ratio between neutrons and protons, etc. There is almost an infinite number of possible configurations the universe could have had. This space of all possible configurations of the physical universe is represented by all the sand...the white sandy beach and the black grain of sand you hold. The multitude of universes that couldn't support life are represented by the white grains of sand. The black grain of sand represents a life-friendly universe.
---------------------------------------------

>>>> response: the black grain of sand on a white beach is not an analogy to our universe among a multitude of different universes. It would only fit a scenario where you know that there a unlimited number of universes which are exactly equal (white) but opposite of our (black) universe.
The correct analogy would be a beach with grains of sand that cover a continuous range from white to black and our universe being somewhere in between (light grey)
Now would you still be equally surprised if someone gave you a light grey grain of sand from a grey beach?
(I know the argument makes even less sense considering probabilities, just wanted to point out that the analogy is flawed too)

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ]

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ]

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ]

acronos · 09-05-2002, 03:12 PM

3-Misapplication of the Anthropic Principle � I agree that your example is a misapplication. There is no automatic selection process in your example.

In a universe where life evolved, it is necessary that there be the conditions for that life to exist. There was no other "choice" for our existence. If we exist, the conditions for life exist. Your example leaves off this selection effect. In your scenario, your own existence is not tied to the grain of sand being black. The grain of sand could be white and you would still be there to ask a question. This is not the case for our universe.

Let me offer another way to think about your example. What if there was a machine above your hand that only allowed black grains of sand to drop into your hand. What conclusion would you draw with this added knowledge? There is just such a selection method in the fact that we observe that our universe supports life. If it did not support life, we would not be here to make the observation.

There are no concrete answers for the origins of the universe. You might think that there is a God who selected our universe, or you might think that there are multiple universes that our universe was selected from by the necessary requirements for the existence of life. Both of these scenarios are based on inadequate evidence. The truth is that nobody knows.

The existence of an intelligent being would have to be the only plausible explanation for this to be good evidence of an intelligent design. The multiple universe scenario is another explanation that I consider much more plausible than the existence of God. Why do I consider it more plausible you ask? Because the existence of God leads right back to the same questions, whereas the multiple universe scenario answers several questions and may prove testable someday. Neither scenario answers how God came into being or how the first universe came into being. Both scenarios� rely on infinities to justify their lack of an explanation for the first cause. If God is eternal then he doesn't have a first cause. If the universal soup is eternal, then it doesn't have a first cause. God also seems vastly more complicated than a universal soup. If the universe requires fine tuning to exist, it would seem that God requires infinitely more fine tuning.

The fine tuning argument doesn�t prove what its advocates claim it proves. It does not prove intelligent design.

A final point, it is very difficult to draw conclusions from a single data point. We only have one example of life - us. We only know of one universe - ours.

Doubting Didymus · 09-05-2002, 07:24 PM

As a sidenote to the actual debate about the lottery argument, I would like to note that I have never yet seen the possibility of millions of dead universes established.

Here is what I think are the two sole criteria a possible universe would need to fulfill in order to sustain life.

1) the universe needs to have a total lifespan of around one million years at the least. this is all the time that natural selection would need for life to arise.

2) the universe must contain stars. To my knowledge, many of the heavier elements are born inside stars, and so we need stars for carbon and whatnot.

The fine tuning advocate must demonstrate that the set of possible universes that last for more than a blink and have stars is a vanishingly small set of possibles. Personally, I don't think it is a small set. I think it would be a whopping big set.

The correct analogy might be: you are sitting on a white beach. Someone gives you a white grain of sand. You say "why the bollocks have you given me a grain of sand? Its everywhere!"

Steven Carr · 09-06-2002, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Gang,

There have been alot of posts about fine tuning lately...most of which (IMO) have either been inaccurate or misrepresented. The majority of my posts about FTA have been about clearing up misunderstandings about the argument and what one can infer probabilistically from it. So I thought I would layout the FTA how most modern thesits see it and 2 or 3 common fallacies that seem to occur in the athiest camp.

Imagine yourself on a sunny caribbean shoreline. Blue sky, blue ocean and as far as the eye can see white sandy beach.
As you are relaxing in your lounge chair someone places a small object in your hand. You look to find that it is a grain of sand. A black grain of sand. You ask yourself 'How was this grain of sand procured? Was it by someone walking along the shore and reaching down and randomly picking up any grain of sand or was it chosen? Was this random or not?

It is highly unlikely that the black grain of sand was randomly selected because the sheer multitude of white grains of sand. So you correctly infer that this black grain of sand was not selected at random but chosen. And in fact, this makes perfect sense. Very few people given a black grain of sand on a white sand beach would think it was randomly selected off the beach.

This scenario represents the fine tuning of the universe.

As always...thoughts and comments welcomed.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

A better analogy would be finding a jhcv colour grain of sand. As there is no colour 'jhvc', whoever needed to put a 'jhvc' grain of sand there was stuck - unable to do it. No matter how finely-tuned the sand, he was unable to create this colour.

Luckily , there was this colour 'black' and whoever put the black grain of sand there was lucky that he was able to find a colour which could be created.

So where did 'black' come from, while the colour 'jhvc' was impossible to create?

Fine-tuning just shifts the whole problem one stage back.

09-05-2002, 01:40 PM	#1
Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 889	Fine Tuning...a theists perspective. Gang, There have been alot of posts about fine tuning lately...most of which (IMO) have either been inaccurate or misrepresented. The majority of my posts about FTA have been about clearing up misunderstandings about the argument and what one can infer probabilistically from it. So I thought I would layout the FTA how most modern thesits see it and 2 or 3 common fallacies that seem to occur in the athiest camp. Imagine yourself on a sunny caribbean shoreline. Blue sky, blue ocean and as far as the eye can see white sandy beach. As you are relaxing in your lounge chair someone places a small object in your hand. You look to find that it is a grain of sand. A black grain of sand. You ask yourself 'How was this grain of sand procured? Was it by someone walking along the shore and reaching down and randomly picking up any grain of sand or was it chosen? Was this random or not? It is highly unlikely that the black grain of sand was randomly selected because the sheer multitude of white grains of sand. So you correctly infer that this black grain of sand was not selected at random but chosen. And in fact, this makes perfect sense. Very few people given a black grain of sand on a white sand beach would think it was randomly selected off the beach. This scenario represents the fine tuning of the universe. The physical universe has constants that don't seem to be derived from or related to each other in any way. The charges of electrons and protons, the initial rate of expansion of the universe, the mass ratio between neutrons and protons, etc. There is almost an infinite number of possible configurations the universe could have had. This space of all possible configurations of the physical universe is represented by all the sand...the white sandy beach and the black grain of sand you hold. The multitude of universes that couldn't support life are represented by the white grains of sand. The black grain of sand represents a life-friendly universe. There are 3 specific fallacies of thought that can occur when reasoning about this situation: 1-Selective ignorance...arbitrarily choosing non-distinguishing characteristics If you wanted you could look at your black grain of sand and declare 'Well, this grain of sand is roughly the same size as all the other grains of sand. It has about the same mass and same texture. It probably is made of the same stuff as the other grains of sand. I see no difference between this grain of sand and the sand on the beach.' Of course this would be ludicrous. It is a fallacy to claim simply because there exists some characteristics that don't differentiate the black grain of sand from the white sand on the beach that it is not distinguishable from them. In short, it would be fallacious to arbitrarily ignore the distinguishing characteristics. 2-Labeling the sand...The Lottery Fallacy If you wanted you could get a super computer and a laser micro etcher and spend the next 30-40 years sequentially numbering ALL the grains of sand on the beach (including the one your holding) so that each grain would have a tiny little number on it. After numbering all the grains of sand you look at your black grain of sand (suppose the number was 5963811) and declare 'Some grain of sand had to be chosen. The probability of the number 5963811 being selected was just as likely as selecting numbers 20043 or 98100023 or 347111. Therefore there is no reason to conclude that this black grain of sand was not randomly selected.' This is a lottery fallacy and, of course, would also be ludicrous. The fact that you can label the sand does not imply that a black grain of sand is just as likely to be selected as a white grain. 3-Misapplication of the Anthropic Principle You could, if you so chose, declare 'I should not wonder at how this grain of black sand was procured...if I hadn't been given a black grain of sand I would not be sitting here wondering this!' This, while tautologically true, affords no new meaningful information about the event at hand. Applied to this scenario, the Anthropic Principle would say 'Given that you've been handed a black grain of sand you should not be suprised if you look around and notice ramifications of being handed a black grain of sand.' It is important to note that this is NOT an explanation of how things happened or insight into whether your grain of sand was chosen or not. In short, this simply sidesteps the question altogether. Anyway, that's the jist of the FTA how I see it. As always...thoughts and comments welcomed. Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

09-05-2002, 03:10 PM	#7
Sheep in the big city Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: CA Posts: 217	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas: This scenario represents the fine tuning of the universe. The physical universe has constants that don't seem to be derived from or related to each other in any way. The charges of electrons and protons, the initial rate of expansion of the universe, the mass ratio between neutrons and protons, etc. There is almost an infinite number of possible configurations the universe could have had. This space of all possible configurations of the physical universe is represented by all the sand...the white sandy beach and the black grain of sand you hold. The multitude of universes that couldn't support life are represented by the white grains of sand. The black grain of sand represents a life-friendly universe. --------------------------------------------- >>>> response: the black grain of sand on a white beach is not an analogy to our universe among a multitude of different universes. It would only fit a scenario where you know that there a unlimited number of universes which are exactly equal (white) but opposite of our (black) universe. The correct analogy would be a beach with grains of sand that cover a continuous range from white to black and our universe being somewhere in between (light grey) Now would you still be equally surprised if someone gave you a light grey grain of sand from a grey beach? (I know the argument makes even less sense considering probabilities, just wanted to point out that the analogy is flawed too) [ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ] [ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ] [ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-05-2002, 02:00 PM	#2
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	You're very cruel to post this on the day in which Koy is trying to leave.

09-05-2002, 02:10 PM	#3
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	I don't want to step on your toes here, but I do have an opinion on the whole lottery fallacy thing. I knew, the other day, that you weren't using the three straight flushes as a direct analogy with FTA. What I was trying to say is that a lottery was a bad thing to compare the origin of the universe with because in a lottery someone has to win. The universe has no such constraints. It isn't just that the values could have taken any form, it's that there didn't have to be values at all. There didn't have to be a universe at all. Nothing is given. In a lottery, it is a given at the outset that someone will win: it is determined that there will be a drawing and that the drawings will not cease until there is a winner. But if the universe spontaneously burst into existence from nothing, then am I right in thinking there was an infinite number of possible forms it could have taken? If so, this is a much taller order than winning a lottery in which a winner is guaranteed. I don't know if this adds anything, I just posted it to get some clarification.

09-05-2002, 02:18 PM	#4
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Great post, but you're missing something very important. Allow me to quote you: It is highly unlikely that the black grain of sand was randomly selected because the sheer multitude of white grains of sand But what if the black grain was actually only located amoung a mere few other grains of salt. What then would you say? And what if there was only one grain of salt by itself? There is almost an infinite number of possible configurations the universe could have had. This is a completely unsupported statement, based on our incomplete understanding of nature. We don't even have a full theory of quantum gravity, let alone a TOE that would allow us to explain what kind of universes are possible. How can we make such claims when we don't even know what is going on at the smallest scales? It may turn out, that our universe is the only possible configuration, or one of only a few possible worlds. String theory, is one such theory that makes the attempt to eliminate all input variables, and show a mere handful of possible worlds. Until we have a full understanding of the quantum world, there is no justification in claiming there are an infinite number of possible universes.

09-05-2002, 02:23 PM	#5
doubtingt Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: USA Posts: 4,635	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas: [QB]Gang, "Imagine yourself on a sunny caribbean shoreline. Blue sky, blue ocean and as far as the eye can see white sandy beach. As you are relaxing in your lounge chair someone places a small object in your hand." ---------------------- Right here is where your scenario goes wrong and has not correspondence to the scenario we face when trying to expain life's origins. Your scenario includes a "someone" who places it in your hand. You already have direct knowledge that there was a someone with human qualities of will, intent, etc. Thus, you know it is easily possible that they could have used their will to intentially pick up a black grain. Like all those who make this argument you assume apriori the existence of the very thing you are trying to prove exist, a willful, intentful entity. Here is how the proper analogy should read: You are sitting on a beach and you are the only intentful being that you have ever known and have no basis to assume any other exists. After an infinite amount of time rolling around in the sand you notice a black grain right on the tip of your nose. Is it more rational to assume that after infinite time a black grain eventually, and randomly stuck to the tip of your nose? Or should you conclude that some willful being whom you have no apriori basis to believe exists, placed the grain on your nose?

09-05-2002, 03:12 PM	#8
acronos Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Georgia Posts: 216	3-Misapplication of the Anthropic Principle � I agree that your example is a misapplication. There is no automatic selection process in your example. In a universe where life evolved, it is necessary that there be the conditions for that life to exist. There was no other "choice" for our existence. If we exist, the conditions for life exist. Your example leaves off this selection effect. In your scenario, your own existence is not tied to the grain of sand being black. The grain of sand could be white and you would still be there to ask a question. This is not the case for our universe. Let me offer another way to think about your example. What if there was a machine above your hand that only allowed black grains of sand to drop into your hand. What conclusion would you draw with this added knowledge? There is just such a selection method in the fact that we observe that our universe supports life. If it did not support life, we would not be here to make the observation. There are no concrete answers for the origins of the universe. You might think that there is a God who selected our universe, or you might think that there are multiple universes that our universe was selected from by the necessary requirements for the existence of life. Both of these scenarios are based on inadequate evidence. The truth is that nobody knows. The existence of an intelligent being would have to be the only plausible explanation for this to be good evidence of an intelligent design. The multiple universe scenario is another explanation that I consider much more plausible than the existence of God. Why do I consider it more plausible you ask? Because the existence of God leads right back to the same questions, whereas the multiple universe scenario answers several questions and may prove testable someday. Neither scenario answers how God came into being or how the first universe came into being. Both scenarios� rely on infinities to justify their lack of an explanation for the first cause. If God is eternal then he doesn't have a first cause. If the universal soup is eternal, then it doesn't have a first cause. God also seems vastly more complicated than a universal soup. If the universe requires fine tuning to exist, it would seem that God requires infinitely more fine tuning. The fine tuning argument doesn�t prove what its advocates claim it proves. It does not prove intelligent design. A final point, it is very difficult to draw conclusions from a single data point. We only have one example of life - us. We only know of one universe - ours.

09-05-2002, 07:24 PM	#9
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	As a sidenote to the actual debate about the lottery argument, I would like to note that I have never yet seen the possibility of millions of dead universes established. Here is what I think are the two sole criteria a possible universe would need to fulfill in order to sustain life. 1) the universe needs to have a total lifespan of around one million years at the least. this is all the time that natural selection would need for life to arise. 2) the universe must contain stars. To my knowledge, many of the heavier elements are born inside stars, and so we need stars for carbon and whatnot. The fine tuning advocate must demonstrate that the set of possible universes that last for more than a blink and have stars is a vanishingly small set of possibles. Personally, I don't think it is a small set. I think it would be a whopping big set. The correct analogy might be: you are sitting on a white beach. Someone gives you a white grain of sand. You say "why the bollocks have you given me a grain of sand? Its everywhere!"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.