The Universe Is Fine Tuned by God

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 85
#61
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
It's more of an interpretation I believe. Taking into account everything that is happening and all the processes involved from the beginning to what we observe currently. More like stepping back and observing the whole picture instead of focusing on the steps. But even the steps and process should ring a bell for anyone TBH. Processes are associated with mind and intelligence....
The fine-tuning argument (the one that Dr.F is using) states that if any one of the (supposedly) millions of variables were altered slightly, then the universe/matter/life/etc. would not exist. In other words, there is one universe, and in this universe, these variables have to be just the way they are in order for anything to happen. If they changed (even by a infinitesimal amount), then these "processes" would collapse. That is his argument. 

The question then is, "How do you know, for a fact, that these processes would all fail if the variables were (even slightly) different?"

#62
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
we tested protons and electrons, boooom
Sure. We tested it and found that the mass of the electron to the mass of the proton ratio is ~1:1836. But what would happen if the ratio was 1:1837? 1:1835? 1:6969? Do you know? 

what are the p[roblems  with anselms argument
I already stated one

Special pleading to avoid the problems that Gaunilo points out with the original ontological argument

Topic's author
#63
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,672
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@PressF4Respect

special pleading to what>
#64
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@PressF4Respect
The fine-tuning argument (the one that Dr.F is using) states that if any one of the (supposedly) millions of variables were altered slightly, then the universe/matter/life/etc. would not exist. In other words, there is one universe, and in this universe, these variables have to be just the way they are in order for anything to happen. If they changed (even by a infinitesimal amount), then these "processes" would collapse. That is his argument.

There's some truth to that obviously. Different arrangement different results? I mean we all should know that the arrangement of our solar system is why we have the results we do, if it were altered in any way the effects would be significant. It's because of the arrangement why we exist in the manner we do. However, I don't think that if the variables were altered then the universe would not exist, but the bodies we inhabit sure would cease to exist.

The question then is, "How do you know, for a fact, that these processes would all fail if the variables were (even slightly) different

They may not fail, I would imagine the results would be different though. Either way we are correlating "fine-tuning" with a Creator, but I'm focusing more on the processes and correlating that with intelligence. Looking at the whole picture it seems deliberate to me, it's more than obvious. My position is that no process or apparent fine tuning could occur without sentience (awareness). It just doesn't happen. Awareness is behind all things, all of creation period. 

#65
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
1. "These ratios seem to have come up by chance."
We do not currently know why this ratio is the way it is, so it must be either by chance or by creation, right?

2. "If the proton or neutron masses changed even slightly, then there would just be a cloud of neutrinos."
Is this claim tested?

special pleading to what>
If you tried using this syllogism on anything else, the conclusion you get would be absurd (as shown by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers). This argument tries getting around that issue by asserting that God is a "necessarily existent being", and that the syllogism only applies to "necessarily existent beings" without demonstrating why this is the case.
#66
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10

So, is it reasonable to conclude that this iodine-sterilized petri dish was optimized for E. Coli habitation?

Sure, I mean WTF

Just to confirm before I ask my final question... I can have you on the record as saying that a petri dish sterilized with iodine is an optimal place for bacteria to live, so much so that whatever doctor/microbiologist/highschool student sterilized the petri dish must have done said sterilization with the intention of creating a place for bacteria to live rather than with the exact opposite intent, that being to kill as many as possible?
#67
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
2. "If the proton or neutron masses changed even slightly, then there would just be a cloud of neutrinos."
Is this claim tested?

Protons and neutrons are basically the same thing, just three quarks stuck together. The only difference is that they are different types of quarks. All quarks types have the same mass though so it is pretty meaningless to imagine a universe where protons and neutrons have different masses in the first place since the only such universe that could exist would be one where quarks are fundamentally different from how they appear in our own universe, thus protons and neutrons could not exist in such a universe in the first place.
#68
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
50/50

Things either work or they do not.
#69
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
There's some truth to that obviously. Different arrangement different results? I mean we all should know that the arrangement of our solar system is why we have the results we do, if it were altered in any way the effects would be significant. It's because of the arrangement why we exist in the manner we do. However, I don't think that if the variables were altered then the universe would not exist, but the bodies we inhabit sure would cease to exist.
The entire crux of the fine-tuning argument is that if the variables were slightly different from what they are, life/stars/galaxies/etc. would not exist. Not just that the galaxies, the solar systems, and the lifeforms would be different, but that they wouldn't exist at all.

 Either way we are correlating "fine-tuning" with a Creator, but I'm focusing more on the processes and correlating that with intelligence. Looking at the whole picture it seems deliberate to me, it's more than obvious. My position is that no process or apparent fine tuning could occur without sentience (awareness). It just doesn't happen. Awareness is behind all things, all of creation period. 
We currently do not know whether this is true or not.
#70
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@PressF4Respect
The entire crux of the fine-tuning argument is that if the variables were slightly different from what they are, life/stars/galaxies/etc. would not exist. Not just that the galaxies, the solar systems, and the lifeforms would be different, but that they wouldn't exist at all.

Perhaps, but that is my take on it, sorry. No need to be so rigid with it. 

We currently do not know whether this is true or not.

Who is we?? that's why I'm bringing it to your attention the very nature of what has been produced. If you accept that processes can occur without there being an awareness that's your decision. 

#71
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,203
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
You have to first picture god making meteorites. 
Then holding it above his head and letting it go.  
Then he quickly grabs it again, counts too four.
One.
And a two.
And three and a four. 
Then he releases it again.  
Fine tuning. 
 

#72
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If an MGB(Maximally Great Being) could exist, then an MGB would have to exist because it is maximally great. The MGB here is God. 

To me, this is the central problem with your argument. FIrst, that something COULD exist does not in any way mean it does exist. Second, and more importantly, you simply state that this being is somehow the god of the bible (capital G). There is no reason in this argumentation, even if it weren't flawed at the outset, to presume the character in the bible is the same one. Can you connect the two somehow? I mean this layout doesn't in any way approach what most people want to believe in, some being that's watching over them, that has plans for them, that's looking out for them and judging their actions and morals, it doesn't define punishment or reward, it doesn't touch an afterlife for humans, it simply doesn't advance the ball you want to advance. It only says "if some maximally powerful being could exists, then it exists." What's that have to do with the bible being true? 

Unless that's not what you're implying, but this argument is used exclusively by Christians, and this one appears cribbed from William LAne Craig or Frank Turek. They don't ever answer this question either, don't feel bad. You're all saying the same thing: something created the universe, and then leaping for no demonstrated reason to "and therefore the bible is true, and all other religions who've made similar claims are false." Please show why.
#73
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@drafterman
@oromagi
@PressF4Respect
Tagging the people who have posted here that I would like the opinion of... I wish one of our smarter theists had posted here so I could tag them too (siranon would be such a person but he is currently on vacation from DART)

Please read my exchange with Dr.Frank starting at post 32. I think it is pretty obvious where I was going with it and that is why he stopped replying but I would like to know if there is something that I missed. It is a method I came up with to try to help people take a more realistic look at the fine-tuning argument in light of the fact that life is only barely possible in our universe.
#74
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I get the gist, but it's a complicated way of going about it. But I agree, seems odd to conclude that our universe - which is on the whole antagonistic to life - was designed for it.
#75
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@drafterman
it's a complicated way of going about it.

That is kind of the point. As a theists suffering from confirmation bias I could easily take your true but short statement "seems odd to conclude that our universe - which is on the whole antagonistic to life - was designed for it." and dismiss it out of hand without thinking about it despite it being a very basic and easy to understand concept. I try to go about it in a way that forces them to actually put some mental effort into the conversation. Well, until they just stop responding entirely I guess =\

Like I said in post 73 it is moreso the method itself I was looking for commentary on. You say it is a bit complicated. Do you think that is a bad thing?
#76
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It makes it harder to follow and more likely someone will drop out of the conversation rather than stick with it until the end.
#77
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The problem with the Ontological Argument is it produces no evidence or verifiable predictions.

#78
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Tagging the people who have posted here that I would like the opinion of... I wish one of our smarter theists had posted here so I could tag them too (siranon would be such a person but he is currently on vacation from DART)

Please read my exchange with Dr.Frank starting at post 32. I think it is pretty obvious where I was going with it and that is why he stopped replying but I would like to know if there is something that I missed. It is a method I came up with to try to help people take a more realistic look at the fine-tuning argument in light of the fact that life is only barely possible in our universe.

Whatever Dr.Franklin's mission is here, I don't think it is to have his mind changed.  Disc, I think your approach was smart- applying a sense of the scale surrounding Dr.Franklin/crossed's cherry-picked observations.  I particularly like the E-Coli metaphor- the survivors propagate their adaptations over the gravesites of the less adaptable, conclude their good fortune equates to destiny and create a magic patriarch to justify the sense of entitlement.
#79
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
Who is we??
"We" refers to all of us as a collective whole. 

that's why I'm bringing it to your attention the very nature of what has been produced. If you accept that processes can occur without there being an awareness that's your decision. 
If it comes down to individual acceptance or rejection of something, then it is no more than opinion. This means that more than one option is valid. The problem is, when/if we get down to the most basic, fundamental building blocks of the universe, there can't be more than one valid option. At the most basic level, either one or more gods exist, or none exist at all.
#80
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,203
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
God makes meteorites and dinosaurs. 
Fine tuned.

#81
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,203
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
God makes Adam and Eve.
God makes blood type A,  B,  AB, and O. 
Fine tuned.


#82
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Your iodine petri dish analogy works great against claims along the lines of
God made the universe specifically for humans.
In other words, it's pretty solid. 

Just for fun, I'll pretend that I'm an apologetic. Call me PressF4Athiesm. This is how apologetic me would respond to your analogy:

In your analogy, lifeforms (bacteria) existed on the petri dish from the onset of the experiment. However, we cannot say the same for the universe. At the onset of the universe, life did not exist (this is true for both the biblical and contemporary scientific accounts), but we know for a fact that life exists now. That means that life must have arisen somehow. 

Consider the complexity of life. In each cell, many, many chemical reactions are going on between many complex molecules all day, every day, just to keep you alive. If any of these processes fail, then the organism dies. Now consider how many of those cells are in a single organ, each one of which needs to work, without fail. If your liver or heart suddenly failed, you would die. Similarly, if your organs didn't work together properly, you would also die. 

The environment also needs to be in a certain way in order for life to occur. Consider how many things need to be just right for life to exist. The temperature needs to be just right, there needs to be liquid water (at the right pH), and there are many, many factors that I am missing. All of these need to be right in order for life to exist, let alone thrive. 

Even if we consider the most basic life form (proposed by Darwin), the first proto-cell which arose in a "primordial soup", the same would apply. Even though the proto-cell would have consisted of only RNA and a lipid layer (much simpler than prokaryotic cells, which are themselves much simpler than eukaryotic cells), the external and internal conditions must have been just right in order for the cell to live. The lipid layer must have aligned just right to encapsulate the RNA and protect it from exposure. The conditions in the soup must have been just right as well, in the chaotic, nearly inhospitable environment of the early Earth. Not to mention, the RNA must have able to reproduce itself, as well as the lipid layer surrounding it. Furthermore, the offspring must have been able to do the same, without fail, as any major mistake in any part of the reproductive process could have ended this proto-life altogether. 

Considering all of this, given the incredibly low chances for even proto-life to appear, it would be a major miracle in itself that life (and humans) got to the point that it did without any sort of assistance. On the other hand, if an omnipotent and omniscient wanted to create life, it could have without any difficulty whatsoever.

#83
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@PressF4Respect
"We" refers to all of us as a collective whole.

Then that would be an incorrect statement, because that only refers to a portion of the whole not the whole (I'm not alone in my evaluations sir). The other portions do not agree, however I appreciate the opinion.

If it comes down to individual acceptance or rejection of something, then it is no more than opinion. This means that more than one option is valid. The problem is, when/if we get down to the most basic, fundamental building blocks of the universe, there can't be more than one valid option. At the most basic level, either one or more gods exist, or none exist at all.

So why exactly are you not considering my argument? there is no real rebuttal here. If you think I'm wrong so be it but perhaps consider it anyways, or break down my position and debate it.
If awareness is not behind all things, then how do all things know what to produce? without awareness, where do processes come from?


#84
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
Then that would be an incorrect statement, because that only refers to a portion of the whole not the whole (I'm not alone in my evaluations sir). The other portions do not agree, however I appreciate the opinion.
<br>
The only thing that I'm saying is that we do not have collective consensus on this issue, and probably will not have consensus for a long time. 

So why exactly are you not considering my argument? there is no real rebuttal here. If you think I'm wrong so be it but perhaps consider it anyways, or break down my position and debate it.
I'm not disregarding your argument, nor do I think that it is completely wrong. I'm just saying that we do not currently have enough information to come to a conclusion.

If awareness is not behind all things, then how do all things know what to produce? without awareness, where do processes come from?
I'll have to do some research into this before I can answer this question.
#85
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@PressF4Respect
The only thing that I'm saying is that we do not have collective consensus on this issue, and probably will not have consensus for a long time.

That depends on what source you are pulling from and how flexible you are. Are you not aware there is a Theistic foundation/proposition? what is it you think we have a consensus about?

I'm not disregarding your argument, nor do I think that it is completely wrong. I'm just saying that we do not currently have enough information to come to a conclusion.

I have plenty of information in case you haven't noticed lol. Isn't that the point in coming here to discuss it?

I'll have to do some research into this before I can answer this question.

You don't need to, it's called commonsense and correlation. That's how we arrive at conclusions with confidence. You're a good person though and I'm glad you are around in this forum.