Vorkosigan

Surely you have read that there are many universal constants. A small variance of any one of them would render life impossible. To permit life, many of these constants (and conditions) could only sustain an infinitesimally small variance. See Hugh Ross's excellent summary:

Hugh Ross's summary has been shot, stuffed and mounted here many times. Most of the numbers he gives have no basis in anything other than his fervid imagination. In any case, his whole argument suffers from major flaws.

1. The entire concept of "constants" shows a marked lack of understanding of the relatively simple concept of selection processes. Because selection acts under constraint -- in this case constants -- of course it is finely tuned to them. But the IDer gets causation backwards. The universe is not tuned to the things in it, things in it have been tuned to it by selection processes. This argument is like the fish in the sea claiming that the sea suits them so fine, it must have been invented for them. Whereas we know, the fish have been evolved to fit the sea. Likewise, things in the universe, including living things, have evolved to fit the conditions therein. Of course if you changed the constants everything in the universe would be different, because everything would be adapted to the new constants.

2. Ross has arbitrarily selected "life" as the reason for the existence of the universe, but of course, there is no objective reason for that to be true. Please offer an argument about why anyone should accept that earth-type life was the reason the universe was designed.

Vorkosigan

Vanderzyden

Vork,

You have neither shot, nor mounted anything with your contribution. I will agree that you have provided some "stuffing".


"Selection" is essentially irrelevant in this discussion. "Selection" is an impersonal, uncausing, hypothetical process that is by definition incapable of "tuning" anything. "We" don't know that macroevolution operates with anything that approaches certainty.

Fish are not self-aware, so they wouldn't reflect upon the suitability of their environment. They certainly wouldn't wonder how meaningful notions arise from hypothetical meaningless, purposeless processes.

If you changed the fundamental "constants" even slightly, there would be no stars, no planets, and therefore no life whatsoever.

Apparently, you don't know Ross well enough to realize that relationship is the purpose of the existence of the universe. Please contribute to the essence of the topic of this thread.

From what I remember of our previous discussions, Vork, you will categorically and unjustifiably dismiss any argument I advance (as you have done here).

Vanderzyden

Vorkosigan

[b] posted October 17, 2002 08:39 PM
"Selection" is essentially irrelevant in this discussion.

Selection is the basis of why the universe appears fine-tuned....it is the most relevant fact of this discussion.

"Selection" is an impersonal, uncausing, hypothetical process that is by definition incapable of "tuning" anything. "We" don't know that macroevolution operates with anything that approaches certainty.

You have misunderstood. Selection processes operate at all levels in this universe, not just living things. For example, when water, running over ground, picks up lighter objects and moves them over greater distances, that is a selection process. When erosion removes soft rock and leaves hard rock, that is a selection process. I am not talking solely about biological evolution.

It is the nature of selection that it "fine-tunes" things. Things in the universe appear "fine-tuned" because the constraints inherent in our universe force them to exist within certain limits.

You can the problems with your position. First of all, regardless of what kind of universe is under discussion, so long as it has constraints, it will appear "fine-tuned." Suppose we were to "widen" the band at which life as we know it survives. No matter how wide you made it, so long as it had limits, those who do not grasp the fact of selection could argue that it was "fine-tuned."

Second, no matter what object in this universe we're talking about, of course it fits this universe. If you wanted to demonstrate design, one would need only point to some object that could not possibly exist in this universe, but nevertheless did. No such object is known, however. All known entities fall within universal laws. No surprise there, since those same universal laws have selected them.

Third, you are arguing for a fantastically rigid determinism. The laws of this universe were picked because they were the only ones that could result in these conditions, and produce life, and deterministically did so. You appear to be arguing that if I made a universe with these laws, I would get life like ours every time. True?

Fourth, you are now facing a Euthyphro-type dilemma. The Designer was forced to choose these constraints because they were the only ones that fit. But this implies that there is some constraint on your god, a ridiculous position. God could make anything it wanted happen. It doesn't need to rely on clumsy determinism and a narrow band of constraints. It could make things go by its miraculous power, as indeed many thought it did in ancient days.

Fifth, as I said before, most of Ross' numbers are offered without justification or evidence.

Sixth, you are arguing from a "god of the gaps" position. Currently science does not know why these particular contraints came into being at the beginning of the universe. Your position thus depends on the continued ignorance of science. This is a dangerous position to advocate, as it takes only one discovery to destroy it. Science has a way of closing such gaps.

Fish are not self-aware, so they wouldn't reflect upon the suitability of their environment. They certainly wouldn't wonder how meaningful notions arise from hypothetical meaningless, purposeless processes.

This is not an argument against the analogy I made, and claiming something is meaningless or purposeless is not an argument either, just a mindless emotional appeal.

If you changed the fundamental "constants" even slightly, there would be no stars, no planets, and therefore no life whatsoever.

Incorrect. Certainly things would be different, and some changes would wipe out everything as we know it. But you cannot claim that there would be no life at all. There may or may not be life as we know it.

And we've arrived back at the question you have not yet answered: why is "life" the reason the universe was designed the way it is?

Apparently, you don't know Ross well enough to realize that relationship is the purpose of the existence of the universe. Please contribute to the essence of the topic of this thread.

Ross doesn't believe the universe was created because the Designer was interested in the beautiful coloration of the clouds of Jupiter. Ross is focused on the issue of life.

Ross actually believes that humans are the reason for this universe. <a href="http://www.reasons.org/" target="_blank">His description of the constants opens</a>:

• A Precise Plan for Humanity: The Anthropic Principle
  In 1961, astronomers acknowledged just two characteristics of the universe as “fine-tuned” to make physical life possible. Today, the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life—any conceivable kind of physical life—stands at thirty-eight...

Note the phrase "A precise plan for Humanity."

Vorkosigan

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"Atheology? What is that? Is it 'the study of non-existent god(s)', or is it 'not (the study of god)'. Perhaps you will insist that it is a convenient term for 'the study of atheism'. But then, I will ask: what is the focus of inquiry, the lack of belief in god(s) or the disbelief in god(s)?"

Both. The arguments for the nonexistence of God or gods and for the denial of theism.

"Although you state one oversimplified caveat near the end of the OP, you do not give this argument a fair treatment. Surely you have read that there are many universal constants. A small variance of any one of them would render life impossible. To permit life, many of these constants (and conditions) could only sustain an infinitesimally small variance. See Hugh Ross's excellent summary:"

I already answered this. Again, all you seem to have shown is a conditional. If the constants varied, then x. But you must show that the constants might have varied in the first place.

"(A) Many highly specified universal constants are necessary to permit life.
(B) We observe these constants in nature.
(C) It is effectively impossible that the constants of the universe would otherwise permit life.
(D) It is effectively impossible that the quantity and high specificity of the universal constants would exist without the prerequisite existence of God.
(E) Therefore, a God exists." (Emphasis original.)

I have already addressed this. (D) is false. Consider a similar argument, and suppose that the odds of winning this lottery are one in one googolplex:
(A') Many highly specified events in physics are necessary for my neighbor to win the lottery.
(B') We observe that my neighbor has won the lottery.
(C') It is effectively impossible that these physical events would otherwise permit my neighbor to win the lottery.
(D') It is effectively impossible that these physical events would have come out the way they did without my neighbor cheating.
(E') Therefore, my neighbor cheated.

As you no doubt recognize, (D) and (D') are false. No matter how much improbability you assume, you can't conclude "effectively impossible." If you can, you can derive "someone cheated" from any improbable event, such as my neighbor winning the lottery.

"In particular, I refer to the Kalam argument, espoused most passionately by William Lane Craig."

Craig's argument fails for reasons I addressed in the Cooke-Aijaz debate thread.

HRG

For this argument to be in any way persuasive, you would have to fill in some big gaps:

1) that the fundamental constants can be changed at all;

2) what a "slight change" means (e.g. if the constants can only take on isolated values, every change is de facto gigantic);

3) that there is a natural probability measure on the set of all possible configurations of constants under which the set of "life-friendly" configurations has small probability;

4) that you do not confuse life "as we know it" with life.

The mud puddle also wonders that the hole in the ground it occupies is so perfectly "fine-tuned" to its shape

Regards,
HRG.

Vanderzyden

No, I understand quite clearly. You personify selection, as though it is actively participating. In fact selection necessarily requires a selector. Your example here is just one of the extreme examples of how far Darwinists take a notion and strectch it beyond its practical limits in order to just their wild hypothesi.

Not so. If the universe has existed from eternity, as some have insisted, then there would be no anthropic evidence at all. This would be (1) because no conscious being would be alive to observe it and (2) because all of the energy in the universe would be useless heat and all the matter would be cold, dark rock.

From where/what come the universal laws?

With these laws, yes.

There is no dilemma. (Euthyphro concerned the love of piety by the gods because it was pious. Are we discussing piety? No. Am I saying that God created the universe because he could create it? No.) And, no, God can't make "anything" happen. Read the last few pages of this <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000617" target="_blank">thread</a>.

Apparently you have not read his web site or his books. Nor are you familiar with the astronomical journals in which he and other publish such findings.

"Science" has made many mistakes. There are many "gaps" that "science" has not closed. And, there are some gaps that science cannot close, such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Again, it would appear that you have not read Ross well enough to know his emphasis. I have many of his books and tapes. Yes, notice the term "humanity." That is not "life", as you previously said. More importantly, humanity means persons, which in turn means personal relationship.

Vanderzyden

Tom Sawyer

There's something that I've never gotten about this "fine tuning" argument. Granted, things in the universe conform perfectly to the laws of the universe and within those contraints, life began to exist. That doesn't tell me that the laws of the universe were designed so that these things could conform to them, but rather that these things conform to them because those are the laws.

If conditions were slightly different, then stars wouldn't be able to exist. Doesn't that just say that if conditions were slightly different, our universe wouldn't have stars, but instead have something else that would conform to whatever the laws of the universe then were?

If the conditions on Earth were slightly different, then life couldn't form. Isn't that just an explanation of why there may not be life in other places, because this is perhaps the only one that meets those condtions out of all the places that there are? If conditions are different in another place, might that not just mean that a different form of life could evolve there?

It always seemed to me that the whole fine tuning thing is just looking at the situation from the wrong direction. Is it just me, or is that actually the major problem with the fine tuning argument? Because I just have never gotten what it is they're trying to say.

Vanderzyden

Do you, as an atheist, really want to take this path? If the constants cannot be varied, then there is no lottery. The game is "rigged" from the beginning. Nothing is "random"; everything is determined. "Selection" cannot possibly operate since there is nothing that can be selected. Combine this with cosmological considerations (which you did not fully address), and you have a recipe for atheistic disaster.

First, allow me to comment on your rendering of my argument. B and B' are not equivalent. You would need to write:

(B') We observe the many highly specified events in physics.

D' and E' are also not equivalent to D and E, respectively. You would need the following:

(D') It is effectively impossible that these physical events would have come out the way they did without X....
(E') Therefore, X...

In your version, "(neighbor) winning the lottery" is equivalent to "permit life". However, there is no equivalent for "(neighbor) cheating" in my argument. You have no equivalent for my "God exists", since "God exists" is not to " permit life" as "winning the lottery" is to "cheating in the lottery" This, again, is why I don't quite understand the analogy. I don't think it's applicable, but perhaps you could modify the analogy and we could discuss it further.

I notice again that you avoid a particularly important question. Please do me the favor of answering.

What is the probability that your monitor will spontaneously lift off of your desk?

You see, Thomas, we are discussing an inductive, not a deductive argument. We shall not obtain a level of absolute certainty in acquiring the truth of the premises. However, you and I know that humans do not need absolute certainty to live productive and fulfilling lives. You know that the monitor won't rise off your desk. You know that the earth will hold you up as you walk across it's surface. So, while we may be exacting and theorize that the probability is nearly zero, we live as though many things are effectively impossible. All of our existence is based upon probabilities--some very high, some low. There are no certainties whatsoever.

Therefore, the same approach taken in other aspects of life should be applied in the observation and analysis of anthopic evidence.


Vanderzyden

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Philosoft

Jebus, but you are a hypocritical little slug. Reading your posts is often literally painful.

Sorry mods, couldn't help myself.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

wdog

vander,

until we get a grand unified theory, nobody can say how fine tuned the universe is, that argument is completely without merit.