So I've been doing some groundwork and "research" for several future "counter-apologetics" videos on my MindForgedManacle YouTube channel (//http://youtube.com/user/MindForgedManacle) and I'm currently thinking about the fine-tuning argument.
Now, I think the more easily rebutted version of the argument is that the universe's constants are fine-tuned specifically for life. I mean, once you point out the incomprehensibly vast amount of the universe (or even just Earth) that is inhospitable to even the most specialized forms of life - as well as the fact of biological evolution (life better fitting itself for the universe) - then that version would seem to collapse.
However, a harder one to tackle (to me) is the version pointing that the universe's constants allow for life to form, despite a hugely absurd likelihood of them falling into that range. Now, you can (of course) posit the multiverse hypothesis, but it is true that such is "multiplying entities beyond necessity", i.e contrary to Occam's Razor, a principle we ourselves often make use of against theists. So what would be the optimal ways to attack this argument, and what pitfalls should I seek to avoid? I've been meaning to check out the physicist Victor Stenger's The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Life (not sure I got that subtitle right), but I just haven't gotten to it.
:-k
Oh and if you know of any relevant, good books/articles on the topic (including if Stenger's book is good), be sure to let me know. :)
How do we know the physical constants could be other than they are? It is just an idea to suppose they could be different. Which means atheists cannot counter the teleological argument, because God can do anything.
8-) Fine tuning is the god-of-gaps argument . Anyone using it must do more than point to a gap in our knowlerdge. He must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that science can never fill the gap. If it could be shown by careful, repeated experiments that the Pope can cure illnesses with his prayers and no one else can, science would be hard pressed to provide a plausible explanation. We can defeat any God-of-the -gaps argument by simply providing a plausable natural explanation consistent with our best existing knowledge to fill the gap.
That argument does not need to be proven. In the case of fine tuning it can. Hooray! Our universe seems to be a part of a super universe called the multiverse suitable for evolving our form of life. Some theist, and even scientist, object to the multiverse hypothesis as being nonscientific, since other universes are unobservable (Here we go again) and nonparsimonious, because it violates Ockam's razor. However, these objections are not legitimate. Science talks about the unobservable (Keep those letters coming!) all the time, such as "QUARKS" and black holes---please, no jokes! They are components of models that agree with observations.
Many parameters of Earth and the solar system are claimed to be fine-tuned for life. This fails to consider that with trillions of planets in the visible universe and countless number beyond our horizen, a planet with the properties of life is likely to occur many times just by accident. Almost all the literature that advocates fine-tuning, the authors make serious analytical mistakes by varying only one parameter at a time and holding others constant. They fail to account for the fact that change in one parameter can be compensated by a change in another, opening up more parameter space for a viable universe.
Doing a proper analysis shows that there is no evidence that the universe is fine-tuned for us or anything else. Take that Bible Thumpers! :twisted: Solitary
I think you misunderstand a bit Solitary. There is nothing (as far as I'm aware) regarding these parameters that necessitates another parameter compensating for the alteration of another.
And you didn't actually explain why the multiverse hypothesis isn't unparsimonious as an attempted counter to the argument.
It only seems finetuned to a selfentitled life-centered mind.
Life is hardly the status quo throughout the universe. To put it intergalacticly mild.
[blink:mozva9hm]LAW OF STATISTICS[/blink:mozva9hm]
Ahem. Yes. The fact that we live in such an incredibly fine-tuned universe isn't testament to intelligent design or the work of a creator - It is a simple law of statistics. Life REQUIRES these things to be fine tuned to exist, yes, but have you ever pondered the converse? If the universe wasn't fine-tuned to make life possible, there wouldn't BE any life. There wouldn't BE any people around to ponder why the universe was so hostile to life.
In other words: If the universe (And more specifically, Earth) weren't so relatively benign to life, we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have come into existence in the first place - intelligent life would have never have arisen, and we wouldn't be sitting around here discussing it over the internet now would we?
=D> Great post! Solitary
Q: What's the probability of life existing?
A: One.
Q: What's the probability of the conditions for life arising?
A: One.
Q: What's the probability of religious nuts being retarded?
A: One.
Basically, the probability is one because it is a fact.
Quote from: "Voskhod"In other words: If the universe (And more specifically, Earth) weren't so relatively benign to life, we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have come into existence in the first place - intelligent life would have never have arisen, and we wouldn't be sitting around here discussing it over the internet now would we?
Life is a physical process just like anything else. If you say the universe is fine-tuned for life, you must say it is fine-tuned for
everything, because the same laws of physics that say thermonuclear fusion occurs in the core of a star also say that mixing guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine in certain quantities will create deoxyribonucleic acid. The term "fine-tuning" becomes meaningless, because all you've accomplished is to say that a particular set of physical laws will give you a particular set of results. You can't have life without our universe and you can't have our universe without life, because to remove either would require a fundamental change to the laws of physics which would just give you a completely different universe (ostensibly with completely different life which might be tempted to think
its universe is fine-tuned as well).
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Voskhod"In other words: If the universe (And more specifically, Earth) weren't so relatively benign to life, we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have come into existence in the first place - intelligent life would have never have arisen, and we wouldn't be sitting around here discussing it over the internet now would we?
Life is a physical process just like anything else. If you say the universe is fine-tuned for life, you must say it is fine-tuned for everything, because the same laws of physics that say thermonuclear fusion occurs in the core of a star also say that mixing guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine in certain quantities will create deoxyribonucleic acid. The term "fine-tuning" becomes meaningless, because all you've accomplished is to say that a particular set of physical laws will give you a particular set of results. You can't have life without our universe and you can't have our universe without life, because to remove either would require a fundamental change to the laws of physics which would just give you a completely different universe (ostensibly with completely different life which might be tempted to think its universe is fine-tuned as well).
Oh, and that too.
Well, that's the Anthropic Principle yes? In a sense it seems to work, but does it? I mean it really amounts to saying "If things were different, they'd be different", which while true seems a bit... unsatisfactory. .-. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I'm trying to avoid being slammed by someone who's more knowledgeable on this than I.
Thanks for the responses. Keep 'em coming. :)
It really does. It sounds unsatisfactory because it's incredibly bland, but it's simply how it is. The argument of "it was finetuned for life" is simply complete bull for the reasons listed above. It has to be supportive of life or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
It's effectively failing to understand that events lead up to other events, and thinking that the middle-point of chain of actions can be its start. None of these people who say "earth is perfectly fine-tuned for life" have ever contemplated how their parents would be able to survive long enough on the moon to give birth to them in an enviroment that isn't hospitable to life. Let alone the rest of the chain of life happening there.
If the universe is finely tuned for life, why is 99.999999999... etc. % of it uninhabitable?
"I'm going to make this giant fucking universe, just to house one particularly important species on a tiny blue ocean planet. The planet will be full of things that try to kill that species too - I wouldn't want things to get too boring."
The fine-tuning argument is no different than "why something came out of nothing", or " why the universe was intelligently designed." The universe exists, and we study it and interpret its properties in terms of the only limited tools we have: the alphabet and the number system. For some, this is unappealing unless they throw in God into the mix. Well, that's what our ancestors did. But as we have come to know and understand more, the need for a God to explain everything has tended to wane. The fine-tuning argument is another desperate attempt to bring about some justification for the existence of a God.
The best argument I've read is by Jonathan MS Pearce:
Suppose that our breathing was dependent on a specific level of oxygen in the atmosphere, and that any other level would cause suffocation. That would certainly count as "fine-tuning" in the sense given by the argument. The atmospheric composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life, and this would therefore demand "explanation". But even if that was true, how would this fine-tuning justify design explanations? A designer would not make it so that humans would constantly face the danger of suffocation! An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, to ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. Such is the case with humans, who can breathe in atmospheres thin or rich in oxygen. The precariousness of a system's functioning is not evidence of design, but rather of natural law.
Quote from: "Voskhod"[blink:12tih1ws]LAW OF STATISTICS[/blink:12tih1ws]
Ahem. Yes. The fact that we live in such an incredibly fine-tuned universe isn't testament to intelligent design or the work of a creator - It is a simple law of statistics. Life REQUIRES these things to be fine tuned to exist, yes, but have you ever pondered the converse? If the universe wasn't fine-tuned to make life possible, there wouldn't BE any life. There wouldn't BE any people around to ponder why the universe was so hostile to life.
In other words: If the universe (And more specifically, Earth) weren't so relatively benign to life, we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have come into existence in the first place - intelligent life would have never have arisen, and we wouldn't be sitting around here discussing it over the internet now would we?
That's the Weak Anthropic Principle. Basically it just says:
if stuff was different, it'd
be different, and we wouldn't be the same (or even exist) to notice it being different. It's a tautology, yes, but a very telling one.
One of the implications of this tautology is that we only have one set of parameters to go on; the ones which necessitate life. Theist apologists like to play on this as important, but it's not really. All it says is that there are possible conditions which do not favour life. If they start talking about design, point them in the direction of black holes. The constants of this universe are a lot more suitable for generating black holes a lot more than generating life.
One of the best refutations to the Fine Tuning argument (can't take credit; read it somewhere myself):
It basically boils down to no more than this: if things were different, then things would be different. If the physical constants were different, our universe would simply be an entirely different place. (I see Sal beat me to it... above)
It's speculative and circumstantial. And an often overlooked aspect is that AT MOST, it could possibly point to a designer, but gives no evidence at all for one "god" over another (nor does it eliminate the possibility of a pantheon of creationist gods), and certainly lends no support to the myth that it was created solely for our benefit.
The entire argument is typical of theistic/creationist thinking: "we already KNOW the truth; let's look for evidence that supports it." Specifically, the only reason the fine tuning argument works for the theistic mind is that if the universe were different than it is, then life as we know it could not exist. Therefore we as humans would not exist. And since we already "know" that the universe was created specifically for US, and we are in GODS IMAGE, then the universe must be fine tuned specifically for us to exist. Therefore, evidence for God. It all hinges on typical false xtian humility and is based upon false assumptions. It's not a search for truth.
Thanks for the input guys. :)
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The fine-tuning argument is no different than "why something came out of nothing", or " why the universe was intelligently designed." The universe exists, and we study it and interpret its properties in terms of the only limited tools we have: the alphabet and the number system. For some, this is unappealing unless they throw in God into the mix. Well, that's what our ancestors did. But as we have come to know and understand more, the need for a God to explain everything has tended to wane. The fine-tuning argument is another desperate attempt to bring about some justification for the existence of a God.
The best argument I've read is by Jonathan MS Pearce:
Suppose that our breathing was dependent on a specific level of oxygen in the atmosphere, and that any other level would cause suffocation. That would certainly count as "fine-tuning" in the sense given by the argument. The atmospheric composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life, and this would therefore demand "explanation". But even if that was true, how would this fine-tuning justify design explanations? A designer would not make it so that humans would constantly face the danger of suffocation! An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, to ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. Such is the case with humans, who can breathe in atmospheres thin or rich in oxygen. The precariousness of a system's functioning is not evidence of design, but rather of natural law.
That is a great quote. 'fine-tuned' does not speak to how well something functions. People have been fine-tuned to die.
my question is. could the fine tuning be better? did "god"skimp? if we could add stuf would life be better? easier? maybe the fine tuning aint all that big of a deal.
Quote from: "aitm"my question is. could the fine tuning be better? did "god"skimp? if we could add stuf would life be better? easier? maybe the fine tuning aint all that big of a deal.
Well, for one, he wouldn't make 97% of all water on the Earth salt-water, with the remaining 2.9% fresh water being frozen in glaciers or underground...That there would certainly solve a whole lotta' issues. That and the extreme variation of climates around the Earth, from the frozen -80F winters of Siberia, to the scorching 134F summers of the Mojave and Saharan deserts. We can only eat a fraction of all the vegetation on the Earth, as well as only a good chunk of the animals on the planet, with the rest being indigestible and/or poisonous to us. All of the poisonous/venomous/territorial animals that can easily kill a human if provoked... And on top of those; all the viruses, prions, bacteria, fungi, and parasites that can make us sick in all sorts of fun ways. Then there's the natural disasters that occur on a daily basis - Tornadoes, tsunamis, blizzards, heatwaves, monsoons, hurricanes, earthquakes, solar flares, the list goes on...Plus, only 30% of the Earth is actually covered by land, and only 2-4% of that land can be used for farming and cultivation? Oh, and considering that we live on a planet that is almost entirely water, we can only hold our breath for 5 minutes maximum compared to other animals like seals and whales who can literally hold their breaths for hours at a time. That and humans make extremely poor swimmers compared to other animals. And don't forget our average lifetime, though much higher from most animals at 70 years, could be much better - like those of the Orcas and tortoises, who can live up to 200-300 years respectively. We can only see 0.01% of the electromagnetic spectrum, and hear the same percentage of the acoustic spectrum. Humans are also extremely vulnerable to radiation, toxins, and infection - with a single nasty cut being fatal to anyone who doesn't get immediate, modern-day medical attention. Our immune systems are full of holes, and up until the invention of modern medicine, allowed for the periodic near-extinction of our race numerous times throughout human history. Seems like he could of fixed those issues as well.
And don't even get me started on Australia.
But instead of fixing them, god gives us the means to fix all these issues, and then tells us we're going to hell if we try and figure out how they work. How friendly of him.
Wheat fields are finely tuned for crop circles. :P
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Now, I think the more easily rebutted version of the argument is that the universe's constants are fine-tuned specifically for life. I mean, once you point out the incomprehensibly vast amount of the universe (or even just Earth) that is inhospitable to even the most specialized forms of life
The universe's constants are precisely the same in the most inhospitable place in the universe as they are on a Pacific atoll. (Except, possibly, for the rum/coconut milk ratio.)
BTW, the scientific term "fine-tuned" doesn't mean, or even imply, that anything was "tuned", it means "happen to be". So the weak anthropic principle still applies. No theist has ever, to my knowledge, come up with a better argument to it than the fact that it's inelegant. And the last time I looked at the instruction manual for the universe, it didn't require anything to be elegant.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"So I've been doing some groundwork and "research" for several future "counter-apologetics" videos on my MindForgedManacle YouTube channel (//http://youtube.com/user/MindForgedManacle) and I'm currently thinking about the fine-tuning argument.
Now, I think the more easily rebutted version of the argument is that the universe's constants are fine-tuned specifically for life. I mean, once you point out the incomprehensibly vast amount of the universe (or even just Earth) that is inhospitable to even the most specialized forms of life - as well as the fact of biological evolution (life better fitting itself for the universe) - then that version would seem to collapse.
However, a harder one to tackle (to me) is the version pointing that the universe's constants allow for life to form, despite a hugely absurd likelihood of them falling into that range. Now, you can (of course) posit the multiverse hypothesis, but it is true that such is "multiplying entities beyond necessity", i.e contrary to Occam's Razor, a principle we ourselves often make use of against theists. So what would be the optimal ways to attack this argument, and what pitfalls should I seek to avoid? I've been meaning to check out the physicist Victor Stenger's The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Life (not sure I got that subtitle right), but I just haven't gotten to it.
:-k
An omnimax God wouldn't need to fine tune the universe for life, it would merely need to sustain that life by fiat:
Is The Universe Fine-tuned For Us? (//http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf) - Victor Stenger
Oooh, thanks for that PDF man. :)