fine tuning argument

[Kharakov]

The universe doesn't operate like a finely tuned Swiss watch.

Except for a little tiny part of it called Spacetime. Ohh, and emission spectra.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Do you have any examples of a mind existing without either brain/meat or some other physical substitute?

Any reason to think such a thing is possible?

If the meat is penetrated by a bullet, the mind really just stops working.

The soul just floats away. You think you can just conclude that the mind is the same thing as the brain because it stops working if it's penetrated by a bullet? Think again, silly atheist. So unreasonable!

 

[Kharakov]

If the meat is penetrated by a bullet, the mind really just stops working.

The soul just floats away. You think you can just conclude that the mind is the same thing as the brain because it stops working if it's penetrated by a bullet? Think again, silly atheist. So unreasonable!

Or at some point in the past an entity created a working simulation of the universe (probably some point in the future of this simulation's time), from which one could harvest the souls of all who have lived in the past ~2000 years. Of course, one would probably harvest pre-stroke consciousnesses, or whatever. Some people might need a simulated extension of their lives to complete training so they can integrate into post-simulated reality (since it will probably be a bit different from what they are used to), call this purgatory. Hell would have been the original place we all came from, heaven will be the perfectly designed future.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't see any reasoning here at all.

Incredulity isn't an argument.

All we have in the above post is disbelief that original ideas (thoughts) precede material inventions, creations...

We have disbelief that there were "original ideas (thoughts)" before the first life emerged. Incredulity is a reasonable response to extraordinary and unsupported claims.

I think 'thought' preceding action is as obvious and logical as cause -> effect.
And, that the autonomous thought/mind/soul/ghost which can intentionally control matter, is not itself 'matter'.

 

[skepticalbip]

We have disbelief that there were "original ideas (thoughts)" before the first life emerged. Incredulity is a reasonable response to extraordinary and unsupported claims.

I think 'thought' preceding action is as obvious and logical as cause -> effect.
And, that the autonomous thought/mind/soul/ghost which can intentionally control matter, is not itself 'matter'.

That is just begging the question (a logical fallacy). You are asserting that there was "thought" (a thinking creator) and asserting that there was intentional action in order to argue that the universe was fine tuned for life by a creator. There is no reason to assume "original thought and action" because there is no evidence for it, only desire or personal need for an answer other than "we don't know... yet".

A more honest and reasonable statement is that we don't know how or if the universe had a beginning but that evolution does a very good job of describing the ever changing environments and ever changing life forms over the past few billion years.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think 'thought' preceding action is as obvious and logical as cause -> effect.
And, that the autonomous thought/mind/soul/ghost which can intentionally control matter, is not itself 'matter'.

That is just begging the question (a logical fallacy). You are asserting that there was "thought" (a thinking creator) and asserting that there was intentional action in order to argue that the universe was fine tuned for life by a creator. There is no reason to assume "original thought and action" because there is no evidence for it, only desire or personal need for an answer other than "we don't know... yet".

A more honest and reasonable statement is that we don't know how or if the universe had a beginning but that evolution does a very good job of describing the ever changing environments and ever changing life forms over the past few billion years.

It's much easier to believe in the magic of religion while simultaneously utilizing the discoveries and advantages of science.

Maybe at some point in the human past we evolved the capacity and the need for intellect. Not every human, of course, but natural selection preserved this adaptation and behavior because it conferred survival advantage. But does everyone possess intellect today? My observations would conclude "no." Religion, however, is a decent substitute because the brain can invent its own knowledge and 'facts" and doesn't have to be at all curious in the scientific sense. Personally, I don't think one can be "intellectual" without being scientifically curious.

As odd as it may sound, religious pseudo-knowledge is a natural substitute for true intellect, and nicely accounts for its presence in the species.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think 'thought' preceding action is as obvious and logical as cause -> effect.
And, that the autonomous thought/mind/soul/ghost which can intentionally control matter, is not itself 'matter'.

That is just begging the question (a logical fallacy). You are asserting that there was "thought" (a thinking creator) and asserting that there was intentional action in order to argue that the universe was fine tuned for life by a creator. There is no reason to assume "original thought and action" because there is no evidence for it, only desire or personal need for an answer other than "we don't know... yet".

A more honest and reasonable statement is that we don't know how or if the universe had a beginning but that evolution does a very good job of describing the ever changing environments and ever changing life forms over the past few billion years.

Where did I say...thought precedes action therefore God fine tuned the universe?

Forget about hunting for imaginary logical fallacies and building strawmen so as to dodge a tricky problem. Just read what I actually wrote and respond to that.

The thought (volition/intention) which precedes a material, physical, caused event, is not one in the same thing as the resulting event itself. And I argue that, in addition to preceding the caused event, the thought/mind exists apart from the physical event.

Which object in this picture has free will volition ?

 

[skepticalbip]

Where did I say...thought precedes action therefore God fine tuned the universe?

Forget about hunting for imaginary logical fallacies and building strawmen so as to dodge a tricky problem. Just read what I actually wrote and respond to that.

The thought (volition/intention) which precedes a material, physical, caused event, is not one in the same thing as the resulting event itself. And I argue that, in addition to preceding the caused event, the thought/mind exists apart from the physical event.

Which object in this picture has free will volition ?

View attachment 6869

If you are saying that people think of things before they act then there is no argument - other than reflex responses like jerking one's hand from a hot stove which we don't consciously consider until after the fact.

But the discussion was about "fine tuning" the universe for life. Humans had nothing to do with that and there is no evidence anything else did either or that any part of the universe was "fine tuned" for life.

 

[Lion IRC]

To say that there is no evidence of fine tuning requires you to show that you understand the difference between what is and what is NOT fine tuning. You dismiss fine tuning but what actually do you mean by fine tuning?

Have you got a clear definition for me of what is and what is not finely tuned with respect to the laws of physics?

If there supposedly is no fine tuning, as you claim, then nothing is finely tuned. But it seems to me that if nothing was finely tuned there would be no 'laws' of physics, no scientific predictability, no epistemology, no basis for rational logic...

 

[skepticalbip]

To say that there is no evidence of fine tuning requires you to show that you understand the difference between what is and what is NOT fine tuning. You dismiss fine tuning but what actually do you mean by fine tuning?

Have you got a clear definition for me of what is and what is not finely tuned with respect to the laws of physics?

If there supposedly is no fine tuning, as you claim, then nothing is finely tuned. But it seems to me that if nothing was finely tuned there would be no 'laws' of physics, no scientific predictability, no epistemology, no basis for rational logic...

You seem to be conflating two different concepts of "fine tuning". There is the religious "fine tuning" idea that the universe was intentionally created specifically to accommodate humans. Then there is the philosophical physical "fine tuned" idea that if any of the universal constants were different then stars, galaxies, etc. could not have formed. There is no reason to believe the first other than it supports religious beliefs. For the second, there is no reason to believe that the constants could have been different than they are - the best we can say is that we don't know if the constants could be different (there is no evidence to judge) but it is an interesting philosophical, not scientific, idea to consider.

For the second "fine tuned" idea, The universe could be as it is but with no planets orbiting in the "Goldie Locks" zone so no environments habitable for humans.

 

[atrib]

To say that there is no evidence of fine tuning requires you to show that you understand the difference between what is and what is NOT fine tuning. You dismiss fine tuning but what actually do you mean by fine tuning?

Have you got a clear definition for me of what is and what is not finely tuned with respect to the laws of physics?

If there supposedly is no fine tuning, as you claim, then nothing is finely tuned. But it seems to me that if nothing was finely tuned there would be no 'laws' of physics, no scientific predictability, no epistemology, no basis for rational logic...

Why would there be no laws of physics without fine tuning by an intelligent entity? Please be specific.

What are the reasons that make you believe the universe is fine tuned? Please be specific. I have asked this before and you have avoided it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To say that there is no evidence of fine tuning requires you to show that you understand the difference between what is and what is NOT fine tuning. You dismiss fine tuning but what actually do you mean by fine tuning?

Have you got a clear definition for me of what is and what is not finely tuned with respect to the laws of physics?

If there supposedly is no fine tuning, as you claim, then nothing is finely tuned. But it seems to me that if nothing was finely tuned there would be no 'laws' of physics, no scientific predictability, no epistemology, no basis for rational logic...

Why would there be no laws of physics without fine tuning by an intelligent entity? Please be specific.

What are the reasons that make you believe the universe is fine tuned? Please be specific. I have asked this before and you have avoided it.

Because fine tuning is the same as "god did it" unless someone presents evidence of a lack of fine tuning. Good luck with finding something not "fine tuned."

I should add that "fine-tuning" is another one of those arguments where believers use science in an attempt to disprove science.

 

[Lion IRC]

To say that there is no evidence of fine tuning requires you to show that you understand the difference between what is and what is NOT fine tuning. You dismiss fine tuning but what actually do you mean by fine tuning?

Have you got a clear definition for me of what is and what is not finely tuned with respect to the laws of physics?

If there supposedly is no fine tuning, as you claim, then nothing is finely tuned. But it seems to me that if nothing was finely tuned there would be no 'laws' of physics, no scientific predictability, no epistemology, no basis for rational logic...

Why would there be no laws of physics without fine tuning? Please be specific.

Because if there is no appearance or concept of fine tuning (and the lack thereof) then there is no datum for distinguishing what is a law of physics and what is random/chaos/unpredictable - lacking any comprehensible understanding as a 'system'.

The irony here is that the scientific method relies on repeatability/predictability according to laws which, if they weren't there, would render science useless.

...What are the reasons that make you believe the universe is fine tuned? Please be specific. I have asked this before and you have avoided it.

Because it is comprehensible - as opposed to chaotic and unpredictable.
We can use such terms as fine tuning and design only because we recognize their opposites.

skepticalbip asserts there is no evidence of fine tuning. Yet I can see the obvious appearance of fine tuning quite easily when I put it up alongside that which lacks design. (Sand sculpture / sand dune)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

skepticalbip asserts there is no evidence of fine tuning. Yet I can see the obvious appearance of fine tuning quite easily when I put it up alongside that which lacks design. (Sand sculpture / sand dune)

But aren't you also claiming that sand dunes are designed?

 

[Lion IRC]

So we have the problem of the person who says there is no fine tuning (nothing is finely tuned) and when asked to justify the claim they say...because I don't see any fine tuning.

But this is like the color blind person saying there is no such thing as color. And when we ask them what they mean by "color" they admit that they don't really know because everything (in their experience) is limited to grey. One needs to be aware of BOTH color and black and white in order to know what one is looking at.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why would there be no laws of physics without fine tuning? Please be specific.

Because if there is no appearance or concept of fine tuning (and the lack thereof) then there is no datum for distinguishing what is a law of physics and what is random/chaos/unpredictable - lacking any comprehensible understanding as a 'system'.

The irony here is that the scientific method relies on repeatability/predictability according to laws which, if they weren't there, would render science useless.

...What are the reasons that make you believe the universe is fine tuned? Please be specific. I have asked this before and you have avoided it.

Because it is comprehensible - as opposed to chaotic and unpredictable.
We can use such terms as fine tuning and design only because we recognize their opposites.

skepticalbip asserts there is no evidence of fine tuning. Yet I can see the obvious appearance of fine tuning quite easily when I put it up alongside that which lacks design. (Sand sculpture / sand dune)

No evidence of "fine tuning" as you define it. You are confusing two very different things, "fine tuned" and "design". One does not even imply the other.

"Fine tuned" for physics is simply the universal constants being what they are. The philosophical question is could they possibly be different and there is no evidence that they could. Einstein's tongue-in-cheek description of this question was, "Did god have any choice in how he made the universe?"

Design (as you are presenting it) requires consciousness and intent. There is no evidence of this in nature even though there is unconscious design dictated by the properties of matter such as crystals, river deltas, conch shells, etc. The sun has to be a spheroid because of natural law - find a star that god decided to make in the shape of a cube and you will have a case for intelligent design.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So we have the problem of the person who says there is no fine tuning (nothing is finely tuned) and when asked to justify the claim they say...because I don't see any fine tuning.

If I may use your own words to demonstrate:

So we have the problem of the person who says there is fine tuning (everything is fine tuned) and when asked to justify the claim they say ... because I don't see anything that is not fine tuned.

 

[Lion IRC]

I actually DO detect both categories of designed and undesigned.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I actually DO detect both categories of designed and undesigned.

Feel free to make a list of things progressing from undesigned to designed, so I can understand.

Also maybe do the same thing with fine tuning, making a list of things progressing from not fine-tuned to fine-tuned, again, so I can understand.

 

[atrib]

Why would there be no laws of physics without fine tuning? Please be specific.

Because if there is no appearance or concept of fine tuning (and the lack thereof) then there is no datum for distinguishing what is a law of physics and what is random/chaos/unpredictable - lacking any comprehensible understanding as a 'system'.

The irony here is that the scientific method relies on repeatability/predictability according to laws which, if they weren't there, would render science useless.

Can you please answer the question instead of merely repeating the assertion?

Why would a system that had not been designed lack underlying, predictable principles that control how matter and energy interact? For example, you might state: "gravity would be impossible in a universe that had not been designed because .......". Please be specific. Also, what exactly has our universe been fine tuned for?

...What are the reasons that make you believe the universe is fine tuned? Please be specific. I have asked this before and you have avoided it.

Because it is comprehensible - as opposed to chaotic and unpredictable.
We can use such terms as fine tuning and design only because we recognize their opposites.

skepticalbip asserts there is no evidence of fine tuning. Yet I can see the obvious appearance of fine tuning quite easily when I put it up alongside that which lacks design. (Sand sculpture / sand dune)

Then provide us an example of something that is clearly not designed. This would obviously have to be something outside our own universe since you have also claimed that our universe appears to be designed. And please explain why a system that has not been designed has to be chaotic and unpredictable. Please be specific.

By the way, you fumbled badly in your example where you contrasted a man made sand sculpture to a sand dune and claimed that the sand dune (natural universe) did not appear to be designed. But in other places you keep repeating that the natural universe appears to be designed. So which is it? If the natural universe is designed, everything in the universe is designed and you could not possibly be able to distinguish between a designed human object and designed natural object because they both bear the appearance of design.