Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2014, 11:25 PM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
(09-01-2014 02:58 PM)flyingpancake Wrote:  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.

So what is their argument? That life must have been created because there is too little margin for error for a would to come together randomly? I would agree that life as we know it is probably very rare. Too far away from a sun or too close is not conducive to humanoid life. Too large a planet or too small is not good either. The planet must have a magnetic field to shield us from cosmic rays and keep the atmosphere from being blown away like Mars etc. So yes the chance of life developing just like it is right now is slim, but, there are 300 billion stars in the galaxy and about 500 billion galaxy's in the Universe, so multiply 300,000,000,000 X 500,000,000,000 = 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (150 sextillion) stars in the universe, and each star has planets, so chances are good that a good chunk of them have intelligent life on amiable planets
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 11:43 PM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
(30-01-2014 11:25 PM)tchr4ibew Wrote:  [...] and each star has planets [...]
I don't want to be nit-picking, but not every star has planets orbiting around it. [1]

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 11:49 PM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
And not every star is in a Galaxy as some stars get ejected from their galaxy.

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 04:18 PM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
(11-01-2014 07:43 AM)viole Wrote:  
(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

I really like this. I will need to remember the next time the fine tuning comes up to make sure that they understand then that they need to accept radioactive decay then, and therefore radiometric dating.

That just brings a smile to my face...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: Question about the fine-tuning argument by creationists
The thing that strikes me is that it's still quite a long step from talking about constants for particle physics to the evolution of humans. Say they are right and God created a fine tuned universe so that atoms could form. He would then still need to manipulate the matter so that the first generation of suns form, which then create the larger elements, go super nova, for new solar systems to form from gas clouds, leading to chemicals, single celled life, multi-cellular life (which has evolved independently at least 25 times) and Darwinian evolution, developing from invertebrate to vertebrate to mammals to humans to society and culture.

I have to ask, how relevant is the idea that the constants of the universe were fine tuned when advocating a particular religion? A religion which is only believed in by a small proportion of a single species for a fraction of its history in a galaxy containing billions of Earth like habitable planets in a universe that contains at least 176 billion galaxies?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: