Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-01-2014, 02:58 PM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2014 04:47 PM by flyingpancake.)
Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
So recently I have been getting in touch with some Christian people and try to understand why they believe what they believe, instead of using substantiated scientific evidence to support their belief. And I have come across one of their seemingly most-favored scientific arguments presented as the "fine-tuning" argument many times. Basically the argument goes as follows: that our universe relies on a bunch of (fine-tuned) physical constants that, had any one of them been changed by even the tinniest bit, then a world amiable to life would not have formed. And my puzzle about this argument is how are physicists even capable of predicting the outcomes of a counterfactual world based on theories developed from this world we observe? Specifically, since the constants are really "constant", meaning that they could not be changed in our universe, then the only way of even having a shot of getting an answer is through thought experiment, which has to be based on the laws of physics that are derived in this universe, but how do we know that the same set of physical laws apply in a different universe that consists of a different set of physical constants?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 01:38 AM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
Its an argument from ignorance, God of the gaps thing.

The possibilities are thus:
1. Constants are constant, couldn't have been otherwise.
2. Constants are arbitrary, an infinite universes exist, we exist in one of the ones that can support life.
3. Life would exist in other universes with different constants but that life would be very different to what we would expect.
4. We exist as self aware programs in a simulator, the simulator does not mimic reality to every detail thus our universe and the constants sometimes don't make sense.
5. God did it (but what did god?)
6. Something else
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
11-01-2014, 07:43 AM (This post was last modified: 11-01-2014 07:49 AM by viole.)
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
(09-01-2014 02:58 PM)flyingpancake Wrote:  So recently I have been getting in touch with some Christian people and try to understand why they believe what they believe, instead of using substantiated scientific evidence to support their belief. And I have come across one of their seemingly most-favored scientific arguments presented as the "fine-tuning" argument many times. Basically the argument goes as follows: that our universe relies on a bunch of (fine-tuned) physical constants that, had any one of them been changed by even the tinniest bit, then a world amiable to life would not have formed. And my puzzle about this argument is how are physicists even capable of predicting the outcomes of a counterfactual world based on theories developed from this world we observe? Specifically, since the constants are really "constant", meaning that they could not be changed in our universe, then the only way of even having a shot of getting an answer is through thought experiment, which has to be based on the laws of physics that are derived in this universe, but how do we know that the same set of physical laws apply in a different universe that consists of a different set of physical constants?

The previous post addresses the issue. But when discussing these things I like to add a couple of additional questions.

If the same Christians are YEC then I asked them if the speed of light is really a fine tuned constant. The same with the physical constants that drive radioactive decay rates.

If not, I ask them what makes them think that the universe is fine tuned for life, if it is indeed fine tuned. It could be that it is fine tuned for black holes, stones or any other inanimate object and life is a not important side effect.

Of course, a universe designed for stones loses a bit of appeal toward proving a god. But there is no real reason to give more importance to life if not for our anthropocentrism.

Therefore, the fine tuning argument, like all teleological arguments, is ultimately question begging.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like viole's post
23-01-2014, 11:31 PM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
These are pretty good.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/theod...uning.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/12/...-on-f.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun98.html

Talkorigins.org always has good answers for any type of creationist nonsense.



"If what you say is actually true, I would want to know it too. ... You can convince me, and if it is true I want you to convince me ... and I will thank you for convincing me."

AronRa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXJHVB7pROE
9:18
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Question Everything's post
24-01-2014, 11:04 PM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
"imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for." -- Douglas Adams

Humans arrived on Earth on 22 October 4004 B.C. A few of us are still trying to repair the ship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like f stop's post
28-01-2014, 05:04 AM
Re: RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
(09-01-2014 02:58 PM)flyingpancake Wrote:  So recently I have been getting in touch with some Christian people and try to understand why they believe what they believe, instead of using substantiated scientific evidence to support their belief. And I have come across one of their seemingly most-favored scientific arguments presented as the "fine-tuning" argument many times. Basically the argument goes as follows: that our universe relies on a bunch of (fine-tuned) physical constants that, had any one of them been changed by even the tinniest bit, then a world amiable to life would not have formed. And my puzzle about this argument is how are physicists even capable of predicting the outcomes of a counterfactual world based on theories developed from this world we observe? Specifically, since the constants are really "constant", meaning that they could not be changed in our universe, then the only way of even having a shot of getting an answer is through thought experiment, which has to be based on the laws of physics that are derived in this universe, but how do we know that the same set of physical laws apply in a different universe that consists of a different set of physical constants?

Not at all. The Christians and unfortunately most Atheists and self proclaimed agnostics don't have any idea what they are talking about. I don't mean Atheists are wrong, they just give reasons which are unnecessary. The values Christians claim were fine tuned have units, those units besides being a human convention are entirely arbitrary. For example the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity is 10^39 but that is for the particles electron/proton. While an electron is fundamental a proton isn't so let's look at the ratio electron/electron. Now the fine tuned constant is 10^47. Now for even more fun let's look at the ratio for two particles of unit charge and similar masses of 1.85 x 10^9. Now the fine tuned constant is 0. Not finished yet but this is the last. Continuing with the two unit charges let's use a fundamental mass this time (the Planck mass). Now the ratio shows gravity is 137 times stronger. Fine tuned my ass.

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phil Hill's post
28-01-2014, 08:54 AM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2014 09:14 AM by Kestrel.)
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
This argument of "fine tuning" can be best refuted as:
Once possibilty is met,
probability is moot.


What locks the theist out completely, is the fact that the observer of the result, being man, is also the result of the observation.

So while probabilities are interesting, it really proves nothing.
I feel it's bulletproof.

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Kestrel's post
28-01-2014, 09:28 AM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
(28-01-2014 08:54 AM)Kestrel Wrote:  This argument of "fine tuning" can be best refuted as:
Once possibilty is met,
probability is moot.


What locks the theist out completely, is the fact that the observer of the result, being man, is also the result of the observation.

So while probabilities are interesting, it really proves nothing.
I feel it's bulletproof.
Well said. Thumbsup

In a universe entirely hostile to life, there would be no one to make the observation that it doesn't support life. It therefore follows that the only observation that can be made in a universe that supports life is that said universe supports life.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
30-01-2014, 09:09 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2014 09:13 AM by exmuslim.)
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
(09-01-2014 02:58 PM)flyingpancake Wrote:  And my puzzle about this argument is how are physicists even capable of predicting the outcomes of a counterfactual world based on theories developed from this world we observe? Specifically, since the constants are really "constant", meaning that they could not be changed in our universe, then the only way of even having a shot of getting an answer is through thought experiment, which has to be based on the laws of physics that are derived in this universe, but how do we know that the same set of physical laws apply in a different universe that consists of a different set of physical constants?

YES ! and the worst part of the creationists using it,
they dont even understand it, and use it as the god of the gaps argument,
Neil Degrasse Tyson said and i am paraphrasing it

They use our scientific observations and try to fit it into their book and ignore large chunks of other failed and poor attempts to explain the world in their bible.

EDIT:
yes it is true that scientists have run computer simulations with slightly adjusted matter - anti matter in the universe, and our atoms would not have hold up as they do now.

and just like dark matter and dark energy stuff we yet have to understand will always be used and exploited by religious people as the hand of god, is something atheists who debate religious people have to remember that we do not have all the answers, but if your claim of god is the thing we have yet to understand then god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 10:04 PM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
The belief is

"The environment adapted to the organism. The organism did not adapt to the environment."

They already presuppose a magical being (that made the environment to fit a design for life), rather than using this as an argument for a magical being.

Life adapts to the environment. It exists as it does now due to the environment it was presented with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: