Fine tuning of the Universe

[Mr.Badham]

I'm confused, because it seems like the argument could go both ways.

Either the universe is fine tuned for life, and therefore is full of it, or only Earth is fine tuned for life, and the rest of the universe will have none of it.

I want theists to take a stand right here and say;

The universe is fine tuned, and is full of life.

Or

The Earth is fine tuned, the rest of the universe has none of it.

Then I want you to stake your religiosity on it. If you make the claim, one way or the other, and are shown to be wrong, you will then become an atheist.

If you are not willing to do this, I would like you to proclaim that the argument is bogus, and should never be used.

You have 1 of 3 options;
The universe is full of life.
Only earth has life.
The fine tuning argument is bogus and should never be used.

[instantc]

If the coin toss experiment had different results, instead of the example I gave of 12 heads in a row there might be 14 tails in a row somewhere else in the sequence.

This analogy is simply flawed. In the coin toss experiment that you describe above, there is a sequence of 14 tails in a row in the middle of a longer sequence. It is not the case that in the list of constants there is a small sequence of life-permitting constants, but rather all of them are in that range.

And since Craig utilizes his ‘conclusion’ in support of a creator God, discussing Craig’s argument in those terms is definitely on topic.

You need to understand what a cumulative case is. Surely a theist would ultimately want to show that the designer is God, but he would do so utilizing a combination of arguments. In order for this particular argument to succeed and to have theological significance, it does not need to distinguish between a physical and a non-physical creator, it only needs to show that there is some kind of a designer. Thus, your complaint that this argument cannot specifically establish a non-physical designer is a futile objection.

An ultimate creator is definitely within the scope of the argument.

Nonsense. Show me a version of the fine-tuning argument that attempts to establish "an ultimate creator".

Your advanced scientist scenario removes the discussion from the context intended by both the OP and Craig. In the OP/Craig context, it answers no questions.

The point that I am making is that this argument does not have to distinguish between the types of designers in order to succeed and to have theological significance. Certainly no-one has claimed that this argument alone answers any questions. If you interpret the word 'designer' in the context of the fine-tuning argument as in the Christian God, you are simply reading too much into the argument. That is why your objection is just flawed and not applicable to the argument at hand.

This is also what a Christian apologist would tell you. You complain that a multiverse is a more parsimonious explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe than the Christian God. But, this argument is not claiming to establish the existence of God in the first place, it simply attempts to justify a conclusion that has theological significance. Thus, your concerns are misplaced.

The multiverse proposal requires only a principle of existential imperative, that what is possible exists.

While the principle is simple, it's direct implications are not, and the latter is what the principle of parsimony is concerned with.

What you are positing is not a principle but it's implications. Principles do not exist, they explain that which exists.

[Ancient of Years]

If the coin toss experiment had different results, instead of the example I gave of 12 heads in a row there might be 14 tails in a row somewhere else in the sequence.

This analogy is simply flawed. In the coin toss experiment that you describe above, there is a sequence of 14 tails in a row in the middle of a longer sequence. It is not the case that in the list of constants there is a small sequence of life-permitting constants, but rather all of them are in that range.

It is the appearance of life that is the 12 heads, not the constants. The appearance of some other unlikely thing with different constants is the 14 tails. In our universe the constants permit life, just barely, in the midst of a whole lot of non-life. My point is that ruling out chance as an explanation for a universe that just barely permits life is unjustified.

And since Craig utilizes his ‘conclusion’ in support of a creator God, discussing Craig’s argument in those terms is definitely on topic.

You need to understand what a cumulative case is. Surely a theist would ultimately want to show that the designer is God, but he would do so utilizing a combination of arguments. In order for this particular argument to succeed and to have theological significance, it does not need to distinguish between a physical and a non-physical creator, it only needs to show that there is some kind of a designer. Thus, your complaint that this argument cannot specifically establish a non-physical designer is a futile objection.

For the fine-tuned argument ‘to have theological significance’ it could not stop at a physical designer. That designer would reside in a universe whose constants permitted a designer. To have a theological significance there needs to be an ultimate non-physical source. Postulating a physical designer for this universe does not address that question. It is irrelevant to the theistic argument because it cannot be the end of the line. A physical designer would reside in a universe whose physical constants permitted the existence of a designer. Where did those constants come from? From a higher designer. And so on. What is theologically significant to the theist is the idea that there would ultimately be a non-physical cause that does not require physical constants. To postulate a possible intermediate physical designer for the universe is pointless to the theist. Why bother with it? But to postulate a possible physical designer for the universe and insist on stopping there is negating the point of the original argument. To the some (at least) philosopher-theists the fine-tuned argument is sufficient in itself, although other arguments exist. To the religious-theists additional arguments are needed to connect to their particular religions. This is the Philosophy forum.

An ultimate creator is definitely within the scope of the argument.

Nonsense. Show me a version of the fine-tuning argument that attempts to establish "an ultimate creator".

Sure.

From the article “Does God Exist?� by William Lane Craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular- ... -god-exist

It is exactly the fine-tuning argument being discussed and Craig starts out saying that God is the best explanation. Unless you want to argue that William Lane Craig does not believe God is the ultimate creator, of course…

God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

In recent decades scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a precision and delicacy that literally defy human comprehension. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The values of these constants are independent of the laws of nature. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities which define the initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate – for example, the amount of entropy (disorder) in the universe. Now these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance of nature would be destroyed, and life would not exist.

There are three live explanatory options for this extraordinary fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design.

Physical necessity is not, however, a plausible explanation, because the finely-tuned constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. Therefore, they are not physically necessary.

So could this fine-tuning be due to chance? The problem with this explanation is that the odds of all the constants and quantities’ randomly falling into the incomprehensibly narrow life-permitting range are just so infinitesimal that they cannot be reasonably accepted. Therefore the proponents of the chance explanation have been forced to postulate the existence of a ‘World Ensemble’ of other universes, preferably infinite in number and randomly ordered, so that life-permitting universes like ours would appear by chance somewhere in the Ensemble. Not only is this hypothesis, to borrow Richard Dawkins’ phrase, “an unparsimonious extravagance,� it faces an insuperable objection. By far, the most probable observable universes in a World Ensemble would be worlds in which a single brain fluctuated into existence out of the vacuum and observed its otherwise empty world. So, if our world were just a random member of the World Ensemble, by all probability we ought to be having observations like that. Since we don’t, that strongly disconfirms the World Ensemble hypothesis. So chance is also not a good explanation. Thus,

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe constitutes evidence for a cosmic Designer.

As I have been saying, Craig’s intention is to support the idea of God, as he explicitly stated at the beginning of the above argument, and he framed the fine-tuning argument for that purpose.

Your advanced scientist scenario removes the discussion from the context intended by both the OP and Craig. In the OP/Craig context, it answers no questions.

The point that I am making is that this argument does not have to distinguish between the types of designers in order to succeed and to have theological significance. Certainly no-one has claimed that this argument alone answers any questions. If you interpret the word 'designer' in the context of the fine-tuning argument as in the Christian God, you are simply reading too much into the argument. That is why your objection is just flawed and not applicable to the argument at hand.

I already showed above that to have theological significance the argument has to have relevance to a deity. Craig’s program is ultimately to lead to the Christian God. But my description of an ultimate creator only includes the attributes of conscious, intelligent and volitional, the least description that could reasonably called God. All I am reading into Craig’s fine-tuning argument is what Craig wants to be read into it, the existence of a creator God.

This is also what a Christian apologist would tell you. You complain that a multiverse is a more parsimonious explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe than the Christian God. But, this argument is not claiming to establish the existence of God in the first place, it simply attempts to justify a conclusion that has theological significance. Thus, your concerns are misplaced.

The argument is intended to point to the existence of God, as Craig himself said. If it is considered sufficient in itself or if it requires additional supporting arguments, I fail to see how talking about the possibility of a physical designer has any bearing on that. To the theist a physical designer would be an intermediate step and would not affect the argument at all as I have explained above and in previous posts.

And I did not ‘complain’ of anything, nor did I mention the Christian God at all. In answer I will note that you have yet to criticize the logic of the multiverse argument at all. Are you not able to? Is this perhaps why you are reduced to pejoratives like ‘complain’ or diversions like ‘the Christian God’?

The multiverse proposal requires only a principle of existential imperative, that what is possible exists.

While the principle is simple, it's direct implications are not, and the latter is what the principle of parsimony is concerned with.

What you are positing is not a principle but it's implications. Principles do not exist, they explain that which exists.

Concerning the meaning of parsimony you are utterly wrong. Parsimony is getting the most for the least. In my proposal, everything that is possible arises from the idea that existing is simply being possible in the sense of being coherent, consistent and complete. It is the ultimate in parsimony.

Some aspect of fundamental reality that allows existence is necessary to explain why a conscious intelligent volitional entity responsible for the existence of the universe (God) would exist rather than nothing. But there would be no explanation of why it should have those attributes as opposed to any other attributes. They are clearly not inherent in the idea of existence or everything that exists would be conscious intelligent and volitional, which is not the case.

Likewise this being the one and only universe would leave the question of why it has its particular attributes in addition to the question of why it exists at all.

Concerning the all possible universes proposal, it is interesting to consider that as in the symmetries in physics (e.g., matter/antimatter) if we add up the constants of all possible universes (positive and negative values) the net sum is zero. In this universe we see virtual particle/anti-particle pairs adding up to zero but all possible virtual particle types existing. In the multiverse everything adds up to nothing. Why is there something rather than nothing? There is not just something, there is everything but in the end it is also nothing. Talk about parsimony!

[instantc]

It is the appearance of life that is the 12 heads, not the constants.

And yet the argument, which I am discussing, and which I quoted from Craig's works, is not concerned with the existence of life, but with the values of the constants. Capiche?

For the fine-tuned argument ‘to have theological significance’ it could not stop at a physical designer.

Who here has suggested that it should stop at a physical designer, are we having the same conversation? I said that the fine-tuning argument does not need to distinguish between a physical and non-physical nature of the designer, it can simply leave that question open and still have theological significance.

Sure.

From the article “Does God Exist?� by William Lane Craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular- ... -god-exist

It is exactly the fine-tuning argument being discussed and Craig starts out saying that God is the best explanation. Unless you want to argue that William Lane Craig does not believe God is the ultimate creator, of course…

What you are referring to is merely a clumsily formulated heading of a chapter, but surely you missed that, as intentionally misrepresenting him would be quite dishonest, wouldn't you agree?

Now, if you look at the argument itself, which I quoted in my previous post so that we would at least be in agreement as to what we are discussing, and which is reiterated in the link that you posted, you notice that it does not say anything about the nature of the designer. Let me refresh your memory, here is the argument:

1. The fact that the constants in the universe are within a narrow life-permitting range is due to either design, chance or physical necessity.

2. It's not due to chance or physical necessity.

3. Therefore it's due to design.

Now, please list below all the parts of this argument that in your view describe the nature of the designer.

Part 1: ______________
Part 2: ______________
Part 3: ______________

Thanks!

[Ancient of Years]

It is the appearance of life that is the 12 heads, not the constants.

And yet the argument, which I am discussing, and which I quoted from Craig's works, is not concerned with the existence of life, but with the values of the constants. Capiche?

The OP is concerned with the universe being fine-tuned for life. The further material from Craig that I quoted, from his book and from his debate, is concerned with the universe being fine-tuned for life, and in particular with intelligent life. You refuse to deal with the main subject of the thread and you refuse to let anyone else do it either.

Verstehst du?

For the fine-tuned argument ‘to have theological significance’ it could not stop at a physical designer.

Who here has suggested that it should stop at a physical designer, are we having the same conversation? I said that the fine-tuning argument does not need to distinguish between a physical and non-physical nature of the designer, it can simply leave that question open and still have theological significance.

And I have shown that the possible presence of physical creators in the chain is irrelevant to the theist viewpoint. So why are you so obsessed with talking about it?

Sure.

From the article “Does God Exist?� by William Lane Craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular- ... -god-exist

It is exactly the fine-tuning argument being discussed and Craig starts out saying that God is the best explanation. Unless you want to argue that William Lane Craig does not believe God is the ultimate creator, of course…

What you are referring to is merely a clumsily formulated heading of a chapter, but surely you missed that, as intentionally misrepresenting him would be quite dishonest, wouldn't you agree?

In the link I provided, Craig prefaced his fine-tuning argument with:

“God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.�

But according to you that is “merely a clumsily formulated heading of a chapter�. Because Craig could not possibly disagree with you, now could he? It is very apparent that YOU are “intentionally misrepresenting� Craig.

And speaking of misrepresenting Craig…

Now, if you look at the argument itself, which I quoted in my previous post so that we would be in agreement as to what we are discussing, and which is reiterated in the link that you posted, you notice that it does not say anything about the nature of the designer. Let me refresh your memory, here is the argument:

1. The fact that the constants in the universe are within a narrow life-permitting range is due to either design, chance or physical necessity.

2. It's not due to chance or physical necessity.

3. Therefore it's due to design.

Now, please list below all the parts of this argument that in your view describe the nature of the designer.

Part 1: ______________
Part 2: ______________
Part 3: ______________

Thanks!

That is not the argument presented by Craig in the link I provided.

Here is the argument he presented there:

• 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
  
  2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
  
  3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Notice that he used the phrase ‘fine-tuning’ in all three sentences of the argument.

Notice that in his preface to the argument …

“God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.�

.. he also uses the phrase “fine-tuning� and qualifies it as being “for intelligent life�.

All of this in addition to another five uses of “fine-tuning� or “fine-tuned� in the body of the argument.

Notice that the title of the thread is “Fine-tuning of the Universe� and that the OP post also uses the phrase “fine tuned� or “fine tuning� five times in connection with life. Notice also that the OP post is addressed to theists.

Just wanted you to understand that the intent of the thread was to talk about fine-tuning for life and that this was also what Craig talked about. As I have shown in the above link and in the previous links to abstracts from his book On Guard and from a debate in which he participated that Craig thinks of this argument in terms of God as the Designer.

That is what this thread is about. That is what I have been debating, including a detailed alternative proposal. (Still unaddressed in any substantive way.) If you want to branch out into a tangent that is fine. But you cannot insist that your tangent is the ‘real’ subject of the thread and demand that everyone follow your lead.

I have been repeating myself multiple times to no avail. Time to move on to another thread.

[instantc]

It is the appearance of life that is the 12 heads, not the constants.

And yet the argument, which I am discussing, and which I quoted from Craig's works, is not concerned with the existence of life, but with the values of the constants. Capiche?

The OP is concerned with the universe being fine-tuned for life. The further material from Craig that I quoted, from his book and from his debate, is concerned with the universe being fine-tuned for life, and in particular with intelligent life. You refuse to deal with the main subject of the thread and you refuse to let anyone else do it either.

Verstehst du?

I am not interested in that conversation. I quoted you the fine-tuning argument as presented by Craig in his written works and asked if you had an objection to it. So far you have not given a credible objection to the argument that I presented. What OP says is irrelevant in that regard, is it not, Ancient of Years?

And I have shown that the possible presence of physical creators in the chain is irrelevant to the theist viewpoint. So why are you so obsessed with talking about it?

Again, one more time, the argument that I presented DOES NOT say anything about the physical or non-physical nature of the designer, it simply leaves that question open.

Let me ask you this. Would you not agree that, if someone could establish that the universe is designed, that would be a theologically significant finding, even if the said person would provide no clue as to whether the designer is physical or non-physical?

But according to you that is “merely a clumsily formulated heading of a chapter�. Because Craig could not possibly disagree with you, now could he?

It is obvious that this heading is merely clumsily formulated and thus not representative of his view. This is obvious, because no apologist in his right mind would claim that the fine-tuning is better explained by God than by, say, Allah. Clearly that is not what he intends to claim. This also becomes clear when you read the actual argument (premises and conclusion), which makes no implications on the nature of the designer.

That is not the argument presented by Craig in the link I provided.

Here is the argument he presented there:

• 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
  
  2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
  
  3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Ok, fine. Now, list below which parts of this argument in your view imply that the designer must be non-physical or describe the nature of the designer in any way.

Part 1: __________
Part 2: __________
Part 3: __________

That is what this thread is about. That is what I have been debating, including a detailed alternative proposal.

Am I to take this as a tacit admission that the argument that I presented to you is sound and establishes the fact that the universe is designed? If not, would you care to point out what is wrong with that argument.

[Ancient of Years]

It is the appearance of life that is the 12 heads, not the constants.

And yet the argument, which I am discussing, and which I quoted from Craig's works, is not concerned with the existence of life, but with the values of the constants. Capiche?

The OP is concerned with the universe being fine-tuned for life. The further material from Craig that I quoted, from his book and from his debate, is concerned with the universe being fine-tuned for life, and in particular with intelligent life. You refuse to deal with the main subject of the thread and you refuse to let anyone else do it either.

Verstehst du?

I am not interested in that conversation. I quoted you the fine-tuning argument as presented by Craig in his written works and asked if you had an objection to it. So far you have not given a credible objection to the argument that I presented. What OP says is irrelevant in that regard, is it not, Ancient of Years?

And I have shown that the possible presence of physical creators in the chain is irrelevant to the theist viewpoint. So why are you so obsessed with talking about it?

Again, one more time, the argument that I presented DOES NOT say anything about the physical or non-physical nature of the designer, it simply leaves that question open.

Let me ask you this. Would you not agree that, if someone could establish that the universe is designed, that would be a theologically significant finding, even if the said person would provide no clue as to whether the designer is physical or non-physical?

But according to you that is “merely a clumsily formulated heading of a chapter�. Because Craig could not possibly disagree with you, now could he?

It is obvious that this heading is merely clumsily formulated and thus not representative of his view. This is obvious, because no apologist in his right mind would claim that the fine-tuning is better explained by God than by, say, Allah. Clearly that is not what he intends to claim. This also becomes clear when you read the actual argument (premises and conclusion), which makes no implications on the nature of the designer.

That is not the argument presented by Craig in the link I provided.

Here is the argument he presented there:

• 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
  
  2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
  
  3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Ok, fine. Now, list below which parts of this argument in your view imply that the designer must be non-physical or describe the nature of the designer in any way.

Part 1: __________
Part 2: __________
Part 3: __________

That is what this thread is about. That is what I have been debating, including a detailed alternative proposal.

Am I to take this as a tacit admission that the argument that I presented to you is sound and establishes the fact that the universe is designed? If not, would you care to point out what is wrong with that argument.

I see that you have not paid the least attention to any of my posts, which have argued at length that the universe is not fine-tuned, designed or created by any kind of entity. But you are fixated on this irrelevant tangent and cannot let go.

As I have said repeatedly, I have no interest in playing that game.

[instantc]

It is the appearance of life that is the 12 heads, not the constants.

And yet the argument, which I am discussing, and which I quoted from Craig's works, is not concerned with the existence of life, but with the values of the constants. Capiche?

The OP is concerned with the universe being fine-tuned for life. The further material from Craig that I quoted, from his book and from his debate, is concerned with the universe being fine-tuned for life, and in particular with intelligent life. You refuse to deal with the main subject of the thread and you refuse to let anyone else do it either.

Verstehst du?

I am not interested in that conversation. I quoted you the fine-tuning argument as presented by Craig in his written works and asked if you had an objection to it. So far you have not given a credible objection to the argument that I presented. What OP says is irrelevant in that regard, is it not, Ancient of Years?

And I have shown that the possible presence of physical creators in the chain is irrelevant to the theist viewpoint. So why are you so obsessed with talking about it?

Again, one more time, the argument that I presented DOES NOT say anything about the physical or non-physical nature of the designer, it simply leaves that question open.

Let me ask you this. Would you not agree that, if someone could establish that the universe is designed, that would be a theologically significant finding, even if the said person would provide no clue as to whether the designer is physical or non-physical?

But according to you that is “merely a clumsily formulated heading of a chapter�. Because Craig could not possibly disagree with you, now could he?

It is obvious that this heading is merely clumsily formulated and thus not representative of his view. This is obvious, because no apologist in his right mind would claim that the fine-tuning is better explained by God than by, say, Allah. Clearly that is not what he intends to claim. This also becomes clear when you read the actual argument (premises and conclusion), which makes no implications on the nature of the designer.

That is not the argument presented by Craig in the link I provided.

Here is the argument he presented there:

• 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
  
  2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
  
  3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Ok, fine. Now, list below which parts of this argument in your view imply that the designer must be non-physical or describe the nature of the designer in any way.

Part 1: __________
Part 2: __________
Part 3: __________

That is what this thread is about. That is what I have been debating, including a detailed alternative proposal.

Am I to take this as a tacit admission that the argument that I presented to you is sound and establishes the fact that the universe is designed? If not, would you care to point out what is wrong with that argument.

I see that you have not paid the least attention to any of my posts, which have argued at length that the universe is not fine-tuned, designed or created by any kind of entity. But you are fixated on this irrelevant tangent and cannot let go.

As I have said repeatedly, I have no interest in playing that game.

By "playing that game" you mean responding to the clearly and fairly formulated simple argument that I have presented to you in form of two premises and a conclusion?

You have not been able to point to a premise that is mistaken, nor have you challenged the validity of the deduction.

Your lengthy posts have mostly not been pertinent to the argument that I presented.

[Ancient of Years]

By "playing that game" you mean responding to the clearly and fairly formulated simple argument that I have presented to you in form of two premises and a conclusion?

You have not been able to point to a premise that is mistaken, nor have you challenged the validity of the deduction.

Your lengthy posts have mostly not been pertinent to the argument that I presented.

Like I said you have not paid attention to any of my posts.

[instantc]

By "playing that game" you mean responding to the clearly and fairly formulated simple argument that I have presented to you in form of two premises and a conclusion?

You have not been able to point to a premise that is mistaken, nor have you challenged the validity of the deduction.

Your lengthy posts have mostly not been pertinent to the argument that I presented.

Like I said you have not paid attention to any of my posts.

If you want to refute an argument, you need to be able to point to a premise and explain why it is wrong.

[Ancient of Years]

By "playing that game" you mean responding to the clearly and fairly formulated simple argument that I have presented to you in form of two premises and a conclusion?

You have not been able to point to a premise that is mistaken, nor have you challenged the validity of the deduction.

Your lengthy posts have mostly not been pertinent to the argument that I presented.

Like I said you have not paid attention to any of my posts.

If you want to refute an argument, you need to be able to point to a premise and explain why it is wrong.

I have repeatedly and extensively explained why the argument referenced by the OP and presented by Craig in the several links I provided - the argument related to theism - does not work. But you insist that everyone talk about a different version that you came up with. At the same time, you have not addressed my arguments concerning the theistic argument or my alternative explanation in any serious manner and most of them not at all.

You just want everyone to play your little side tangent game. Sorry, not interested. I suggest you go play the game with yourself.