Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2014, 01:30 AM
Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
(Take one was instantly soiled by two idiots taking a crap in it and flinging the feces at each other, so I've relocated it here. They may do the same thing here, but what the hell, let's take a chance).

This is a common theme, available to religious distortion only by the light of science, that earth is habitable only by virtue of an improbable coincidence of factors. This article in the Jan 2015 edition of Scientific American makes excellent hash of that supposition. The link does not give access to the full article but if you can get access to the full article it's worth a look and is no more than about a 15 minute read.

It's principal point is that our earth is NOT, in fact, necessarily the best possible earth orbiting the best possible sun at the best possible astronomical unit (orbit radius) for habitability, or for evolutionary diversity, and certainly not for longevity of viable biosphere. A larger earth orbiting a K type dwarf star would in many respects be more ideal, and these configurations of solar system appear to be common. The nearest so far detected is 500 light years away.

One thing the article mentions is that the earth becomes uninhabitable 1.75 billion years from now, the "zone of habitability" being pushed outward by our steadily brightening sun will make earth too hot (the oceans fully evaporated). At 4.5 billion years old, this ol' ball o' rock is already two thirds into its livable lifespan. We'd better get busy with those spaceships.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 02:09 AM
RE: Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
Two things:
-I was under the impression that the fine tuning argument referred to the baseline conditions of the universe rather than our enviroment within the universe. (So the effect matter has on other matter, gravity, is high enough to allow planets and whatever to form but low enough to allow various chemical reactions/ whavever to move matter against the pull of gravity.) Not saying you're wrong; just wondering which is more common.

-Isn't the best rebuttal for a fine tuning argument that the conditions we can live in exist? Am I mischaracterizing something?

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 02:46 AM
RE: Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
(28-12-2014 02:09 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  ... the fine tuning argument referred to the baseline conditions of the universe rather than our environment within the universe ...

You're probably correct in that the more common fine tuning arguments cite universe conditions rather than planetary ones, but I have heard planetary arguments. I think the concept here that better earths are even possible demolishes either form of the argument, in that if better ANYTHING is possible as it pertains to the viability of life as we know it to exist, it makes hash of the contention that the existing configuration is the ONLY and PERFECT design.

(28-12-2014 02:09 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  ... Isn't the best rebuttal for a fine tuning argument that the conditions we can live in exist?

Not quite. That'd be like a lottery winner saying "Hey, if I can do it anybody can".

But it's close. I think the better form of the rebuttal is "life as we know it" requires all the confluence of factors, but there's no telling what sort of "life" could have emerged from some other confluence of factors. So, the factors we observe produced us, and while any set of factors other than those would have made us impossible, some "other" type of "us" could have arisen if the factors were different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
28-12-2014, 03:39 AM
RE: Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
^So a more exact way I could have phrased that would be: Conditions exist in which we can live and we exclusively live in them? We don't find life in conditions where we could not have emerged.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 06:09 AM
RE: Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
Playing God's Advocate for a moment... Wink

Taking the "life as we know it" argument first, can you really see that being a good rebuttal against a die-hard creationist? If, for example, we eventually find life on, say, Europa, can't already sense the distant rumbling of the "God moves in mysterious ways" argument galloping towards us?

As for the "perfect universe" argument, I've always thought it simple enough to rebutt by stating that if the perfect universe didn't not exist, neither would we, and point to a hypothesis that it is equally likely that this universe could be the sixth, sixtieth or six billionth "throw of the dice" (I am also aware of a parallel universe argument, grounded in theoretical physics, but I'd need some time to reresearch this).

Not trying to throw faeces around by proxy here, but as this is a "defence against the dark arts" session, the arguments should be tested not only against logic but ahainst the style of argument used by fundies, no?

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 07:54 AM
RE: Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
(28-12-2014 06:09 AM)gofish! Wrote:  Playing God's Advocate for a moment... Wink

Taking the "life as we know it" argument first, can you really see that being a good rebuttal against a die-hard creationist? If, for example, we eventually find life on, say, Europa, can't already sense the distant rumbling of the "God moves in mysterious ways" argument galloping towards us?

As for the "perfect universe" argument, I've always thought it simple enough to rebut by stating that if the perfect universe didn't not exist, neither would we, and point to a hypothesis that it is equally likely that this universe could be the sixth, sixtieth or six billionth "throw of the dice" (I am also aware of a parallel universe argument, grounded in theoretical physics, but I'd need some time to reresearch this).

Not trying to throw faeces around by proxy here, but as this is a "defence against the dark arts" session, the arguments should be tested not only against logic but ahainst the style of argument used by fundies, no?

Yeah, if there are an infinite number of multi-verses, then even if it's an infinitesimal chance of life, the probability is 100% of life evolving, yet it gives the impression of deliberate intent, almost indistinguishable from a impersonal, deistic god.
The main argument against any design is the sheer immensity of it, to use a line from Contact, "it's an awful waste of space".

If I were to remove myself to the outside of a filament structure composed of a billion galaxies and look at things from the cosmic level, I could easily say the true intent of a creator is to generate artwork in the form of beautiful spirals throughout the structure of the universe. Life is completely irrelevant, just a by product of this cosmic artwork.

[Image: 6a00d8341bf7f753ef014e8be85d56970d-pi]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
(28-12-2014 01:30 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  This is a common theme, available to religious distortion only by the light of science, that earth is habitable only by virtue of an improbable coincidence of factors.

Only a small portion of the Earth is inhabitable by H. sapiens. The majority of it is drowning country. If we disallow clothing, fire or other trappings not available to other animals, the remaining land area is largely too cold, too dry, too hot or too pointy. This includes all of the US and Europe at some point in the year.

The parts of the Earth that have been fine tuned for us are few and far between.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
You just aren't taking all the variables into account. God put us at this particular distance from this particular sun so that we would meet the Europans and together build ships to explore the galaxy in conquest, glory, and missionary zeal. We are his chosen people after all, and there are a lot of heathens out there just waiting to be civilised.

From there we are all set to expand into the rest of the virgo supercluster, where we will discover beings who can teach us how to reach beyond the observable universe. Our mighty armies missionaries will conquer all!

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
28-12-2014, 11:17 AM
RE: Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
When in doubt, consult Iron Chariots Wiki:

Some philosophers have noted that the fine tuning argument is not vastly good argument for the existence of God but rather a vastly good argument for the non-existence of God. Largely the argument itself hinges on the narrow range of properties for the universe to develop to allow for life. But, this narrow range are precisely the required range needed for life in this universe to occur naturally if there were no God.

If there were a God, rather than needing 70 sextillion stars and 13.75 billion years, there would only be need of one planet. Rather than having more planets than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth. The only reason this universe needs to be this vast and this old is if life occurs randomly without any intelligent design. If life occurs only by happenstance, then any life that exists should exist in a amazingly vast universe just to allow the chemicals needed to kick up life enough chances to happen to kick up something as complex as life.

If somebody claims to be psychic and they win the lottery three times in a row, that seems to be good evidence. However, if they bought every possible combination of numbers for each of those lotteries. That feat requires no psychic abilities at all.

Only upon the assumption of atheism do we really need these exact values. For only these values allow the formation of life to occur without God and without any outside influences.

The fine-tuning argument is actually therefore a great argument for atheism. Which theists are wrongly claiming as evidence for God.

"The universe looks exactly as it should look if there is no God. How amazing is that exactness? Therefore God exists." -- If the universe looked as if it couldn't exist only by chance, theists would and do claim God exists in that case as well. The universe either cannot happen naturally and therefore God did it, or the universe can happen naturally and what an amazing feat that is and therefore God did it. Resulting in a Brian's Paradox

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...g_argument

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WillHopp's post
28-12-2014, 11:45 AM
RE: Rebutting the Concept of a "Fine Tuned" Earth - Take Two
(28-12-2014 11:17 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  When in doubt, consult Iron Chariots Wiki:

Some philosophers have noted that the fine tuning argument is not vastly good argument for the existence of God but rather a vastly good argument for the non-existence of God. Largely the argument itself hinges on the narrow range of properties for the universe to develop to allow for life. But, this narrow range are precisely the required range needed for life in this universe to occur naturally if there were no God.

As much as I love this argument, having tested this against nutbars, I am sad to report them playing the "mysterious ways" joker. Ironically one stated, bold as brass, that this "proved nothing", ironically invoking logic, if only fleetingly.

To my albeit limited experience, logical debate with rational theists is possible, all other theists need therapy.

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: