Theological Fine Tuning

[Cheerful Charlie]

I have come up with a concept I call theological fine tuning. Theists tell us that the Universe is so fine tuned, there must have been a creative mind to account for that. It cannot have happened by chance.

Now to theological fine tuning. How did the Universe become so fine tuned to allow for the existence of an intelligent, personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God? A God that is simple, and has aseity, existence. How did the Universe become so ordered and fined tuned to allow that? If fine tuning is a sign of intelligent creation, it must be a sign somebody designed and created God. We then end up with an infinite chain of fine tuned Universes, meta-Universes and meta-meta-universes. These sort of things cannot come about from mere chance.

 

[Lion IRC]

Ummm...the universe doesn't "allow" for the existence of God.
#horseB4cart

 

[Tigers!]

I have come up with a concept I call theological fine tuning. Theists tell us that the Universe is so fine tuned, there must have been a creative mind to account for that. It cannot have happened by chance.

The last time I looked the Anthropic Principle was devised by scientists not theists.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yep. Fine tuning is deliberately NOT about theology.

 

[remez]

I have come up with a concept I call theological fine tuning. Theists tell us that the Universe is so fine tuned, there must have been a creative mind to account for that. It cannot have happened by chance.

Now to theological fine tuning. How did the Universe become so fine tuned to allow for the existence of an intelligent, personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God? A God that is simple, and has aseity, existence. How did the Universe become so ordered and fined tuned to allow that? If fine tuning is a sign of intelligent creation, it must be a sign somebody designed and created God. We then end up with an infinite chain of fine tuned Universes, meta-Universes and meta-meta-universes. These sort of things cannot come about from mere chance.

So specifically.....

How did the Universe become so fine tuned to allow for the existence of an intelligent, personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God?

The premise of your concept does not reflect an understanding of theism. It is the other way around. It’s the existence of an intelligent, personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, ETERNAL God that best explains the existence of the finite, fine tuned universe.

If fine tuning is a sign of intelligent creation, it must be a sign somebody designed and created God.

Again. If you are specifically addressing Christianity then you are missing the eternality of God and what that logically infers. God has no beginning therefore was not created, he has no cause.

We then end up with an infinite chain of fine tuned Universes, meta-Universes and meta-meta-universes. These sort of things cannot come about from mere chance.

Precisely, chance does not best explain the observed fine tuning of the universe.
There must have been an eternal intelligent designer.

 

[ruby sparks]

I have come up with a concept I call theological fine tuning. Theists tell us that the Universe is so fine tuned, there must have been a creative mind to account for that. It cannot have happened by chance.

Now to theological fine tuning. How did the Universe become so fine tuned to allow for the existence of an intelligent, personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God? A God that is simple, and has aseity, existence. How did the Universe become so ordered and fined tuned to allow that? If fine tuning is a sign of intelligent creation, it must be a sign somebody designed and created God. We then end up with an infinite chain of fine tuned Universes, meta-Universes and meta-meta-universes. These sort of things cannot come about from mere chance.

One theory I have is that the same god was reincarnated an infinite number of times. The word 'eternal' in the texts was just shorthand for 'eternally self-replicating'. Papyrus was in short supply back then.

Another theory is that god created himself using cosmic bootstrapping. They didn't have boots with laces in those days so if the texts had said bootstrapping, nobody would have understood.

 

[remez]

I have come up with a concept I call theological fine tuning. Theists tell us that the Universe is so fine tuned, there must have been a creative mind to account for that. It cannot have happened by chance.

Now to theological fine tuning. How did the Universe become so fine tuned to allow for the existence of an intelligent, personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God? A God that is simple, and has aseity, existence. How did the Universe become so ordered and fined tuned to allow that? If fine tuning is a sign of intelligent creation, it must be a sign somebody designed and created God. We then end up with an infinite chain of fine tuned Universes, meta-Universes and meta-meta-universes. These sort of things cannot come about from mere chance.

One theory I have is that the same god was reincarnated an infinite number of times. The word 'eternal' in the texts was just shorthand for 'eternally self-replicating'. Papyrus was in short supply back then.

Another theory is that god created himself using cosmic bootstrapping. They didn't have boots with laces in those days so if the texts had said bootstrapping, nobody would have understood.

first theory...

One theory I have is that the same god was reincarnated an infinite number of times

The context was theism not pantheism.

The word 'eternal' in the texts was just shorthand for 'eternally self-replicating'. Papyrus was in short supply back then.

Not. I get your humor but you miss the inference of eternal. The Christian God is eternal, thus has no beginning, he has no cause. That is what it means to be eternal. Thus your second theory fails as well.

 

[bigfield]

God has no beginning therefore was not created, he has no cause.

Claiming that God "has no beginning" is just an elaboration on the attempt to claim an exception from causality, and is a straightforward example of special pleading.

 

[remez]

God has no beginning therefore was not created, he has no cause.

Claiming that God "has no beginning" is just an elaboration on the attempt to claim an exception from causality, and is a straightforward example of special pleading.

Again the context was theism. The eternality of God predates the argument thus there is no special pleading. If something is eternal it has no cause.

 

[Learner]

Maybe its true "after all" as some believers have been saying - all thats hidden,gradually being revealed among many, (I got just few of the verses from) :that the two witnesses are "God and Christians"!

By the look of the "Theists" on this thread at least, replying back in the "same manner" with fire (words) from their mouths.

Jeremiah 5:14
Wherefore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.

Acts 26:16
I have appeared to you to appoint YOU as a SERVANT and as a WITNESS of what you have seen and will see of me.

John 8:16-18 – 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of TWO WITNESSES is true. 18 I am ONE who testifies for myself; my OTHER witness is the Father, who sent me.”

Sorry being off topic ...back to the OP

 

[Copernicus]

I have come up with a concept I call theological fine tuning. Theists tell us that the Universe is so fine tuned, there must have been a creative mind to account for that. It cannot have happened by chance.

The last time I looked the Anthropic Principle was devised by scientists not theists.

The anthropic principle is a theological argument. Sad to say, some scientists are theists.

Yep. Fine tuning is deliberately NOT about theology.

Are you being sarcastic or ironic, Lion?

What surprises me is not that people find themselves in a universe that is "fine tuned" to produce them but that anyone would expect to find themselves in a universe that was not. Of course, the universe was not always in tune with beings like us, and it seems inevitably on a course to go out of tune.

 

[Learner]

The anthropic principle is a theological argument. Sad to say, some scientists are theists.

It maybe sad if all scientists were atheists ..simply being ...they may non-deliberately ignore or overlook what is discovered i.e. not registering in the "naturalist" mental mode ..so to speak.

A balance of both should be quite fair , with the agnostics keeping checks and balances between the two etc...

What surprises me is not that people find themselves in a universe that is "fine tuned" to produce them but that anyone would expect to find themselves in a universe that was not. Of course, the universe was not always in tune with beings like us, and it seems inevitably on a course to go out of tune.

Habitable places for living is not the same thing as for example : The laws of physics ,which has always been "in tune" i.e. has never changed (as far as we can tell), therefore life that exists now has always had that potential to exist and survive "when" the conditions "get" right.

 

[ruby sparks]

The Christian God is eternal, thus has no beginning, he has no cause.

1. How did you arrive at that position? You see, I suspect that you more or less read it somewhere or were told it, and you believed it.

2. Unlike yours, my theories don't suffer from special pleading.

2-nil to me if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I have come up with a concept I call theological fine tuning. Theists tell us that the Universe is so fine tuned, there must have been a creative mind to account for that. It cannot have happened by chance.

The last time I looked the Anthropic Principle was devised by scientists not theists.

The fine tuning argument is based on the fact that there are some rather narrow range of factors that allow the Universe to exist as we know it, and for life to exist. This is indeed the work of cosmologists and physicists. These facts have been latched onto by theologians and apologists to claim that the Universe as we know it is so unlikely, that there must be an all powerful, intelligent creator to account for that fact. Ignoring other possibilities of course. And jumping to conclusions.

But at root, failing to account for how such a being can come to exist and how unlikely that is. What I am suggesting is that if an existing Universe that can support life is unlikely, and cannot happen by chance, a Universe that can support existence of a God as described is even more unlikely. Theological fine tuning simply points out that problem.

The fine tuning argument is what philosopher Schopenhauer called a taxi cab argument, an argument used to arrive to a desired conclusion and then dismissed.

 

[Copernicus]

The anthropic principle is a theological argument. Sad to say, some scientists are theists.

It maybe sad if all scientists were atheists ..simply being ...they may non-deliberately ignore or overlook what is discovered i.e. not registering in the "naturalist" mental mode ..so to speak.

A balance of both should be quite fair , with the agnostics keeping checks and balances between the two etc...

The point had less to do with my sadness than the mistaken point I was responding to. The anthropic principle is a philosophical/theological principle, not a scientific one. There is no evidence that can verify it, since science can only deal with what can be observed. And we can't even be sure that what we observe is the result of the uniformity of physical laws. We can only assume it. Scientists quite often take philosophical or theistic positions that are nonscientific. Because a scientist makes a claim, that doesn't make the claim scientific.

What surprises me is not that people find themselves in a universe that is "fine tuned" to produce them but that anyone would expect to find themselves in a universe that was not. Of course, the universe was not always in tune with beings like us, and it seems inevitably on a course to go out of tune.

Habitable places for living is not the same thing as for example : The laws of physics ,which has always been "in tune" i.e. has never changed (as far as we can tell), therefore life that exists now has always had that potential to exist and survive "when" the conditions "get" right.

Your caveat--"as far as we can tell"--is where the logic of the argument breaks down. And habitable spaces for our kind of being are actually exceedingly rare in the universe. There was a very long period when no such spaces existed at all, and--as far as we can tell--they will cease to exist at all in the future. You might as well say that the pot in my kitchen is fine-tuned as a hat because I can wear it on my head. There are a lot of things one can do with pots that have nothing to do with why they exist.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yep. Fine tuning is deliberately NOT about theology.

Are you being sarcastic or ironic, Lion?

No. The universe can be scientifically described as "finely tuned" for life without necessarily requiring use of the word "God". Obviously, God can be posited as one possible explanation for the anthropic principle.

It's like the Kalam Cosmological Argument (first cause). One can accept the premise that contingent things require a cause of their existence without invoking God/theology.

First decide scientifically whether there is an anthropic principle. THEN we can discuss theology.

 

[Copernicus]

Yep. Fine tuning is deliberately NOT about theology.

Are you being sarcastic or ironic, Lion?

No. The universe can be scientifically described as "finely tuned" for life without necessarily requiring use of the word "God". Obviously, God can be posited as one possible explanation for the anthropic principle.

First of all, describing the universe without necessarily requiring the use of the word "God" is in no way a "scientific description". The anthropic principle, in all its godless forms, is just a philosophical stance that appeals to scientific concepts, not a scientific stance.

It's like the Kalam Cosmological Argument (first cause). One can accept the premise that contingent things require a cause of their existence without invoking God/theology.

In that case, the anthropic principle is just a theological argument, since that is all that Kalam is. It is an argument that God exists, assuming that you can get away with the claim that God is a non-contingent thing and avoid begging the question.

First decide scientifically whether there is an anthropic principle. THEN we can discuss theology.

Again, you state the whole reason for even making the claim of an "anthropic principle". What makes the claim so ironic is that one could argue for some kind of supernatural agency if we turned out to exist in a universe that wasn't somehow "fine-tuned" to produce us. THAT would take a miracle. Without God at the conclusion, the concept is quite useless.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ummm...the universe doesn't "allow" for the existence of God.
#horseB4cart

Everything that exists allows for the existence of everything else that exists. The universe exists. Therefore if the universe doesn't "allow" for the existence of God, then God does not exist.

 

[Bomb#20]

How did the Universe become so fine tuned to allow for the existence of an intelligent, personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God?

So specifically.....

The premise of your concept does not reflect an understanding of theism. It is the other way around. It’s the existence of an intelligent, personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, ETERNAL God that best explains the existence of the finite, fine tuned universe.

Of course his premise reflects an understanding of theism -- it understands that theism is based on special pleading fallacies. His argument tries to draw theists' attention to these; but of course theists are resistant, and will think however fallaciously they need to think in order to avoid seeing what's staring them in the face.

You and Cheerful Charlie are using the word "universe" in two different ways. He's using it to mean "everything". You're using it to mean "everything on one side of an arbitrary border in my mind, a line I can use as an excuse to shut down chains of reasoning any time they threaten to cross it." You put planets and people and so forth on the "universe" side of your mental border, and you put God on the other side, the "not universe" side. Cheerful Charlie doesn't do that. Let us therefore discard the word "universe", since it has become a hindrance to clarity.

Let us instead use the word "reality". If God is real, then He/She/It qualifies as a part of reality, yes? "Reality" means all real things.

If the subset of reality on the left side of the border in your mind requires fine-tuning in order for thinking animals to exist in it, why does it require fine-tuning? And if there is some reason X to think it requires fine-tuning, what reason is there to think that reason X doesn't also symmetrically imply that it takes fine-tuning in order for a thinking God to exist in the subset of reality on the right side of the border in your mind?

If fine tuning is a sign of intelligent creation, it must be a sign somebody designed and created God.

Again. If you are specifically addressing Christianity then you are missing the eternality of God and what that logically infers. God has no beginning therefore was not created, he has no cause.

He's missing nothing. If God can exist without fine-tuning, then fine-tuning is not necessary for intelligence. If fine-tuning is not necessary for intelligence then the entire point of the fine-tuning argument -- that the presence of human intelligence implies fine tuning -- goes away.

 

[Bomb#20]

The point had less to do with my sadness than the mistaken point I was responding to. The anthropic principle is a philosophical/theological principle, not a scientific one. There is no evidence that can verify it, since science can only deal with what can be observed. And we can't even be sure that what we observe is the result of the uniformity of physical laws. We can only assume it. Scientists quite often take philosophical or theistic positions that are nonscientific. Because a scientist makes a claim, that doesn't make the claim scientific.

There's no such thing as assuming the uniformity of physical laws. A lot of people say science is based on that assumption, but they're not even wrong. It's a nonsense phrase. There are only statements about reality that are always true, and statements about reality that aren't always true. That's not an assumption; that's a tautology. A "physical law that isn't always true" isn't an alternative hypothesis from some sort of alternative nonscientific worldview, one we need to assume isn't how the universe works in order to do science. It's just a contradiction in terms.