Thread: Question for Atheists.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

Well let's put all arguments from ignorance aside and have a discussion.. Disregarding the multiverse theory, how can you ignore the fine tuning of the universe as evidence for the existence of a higher being?

What fine tuning? Are you arrogant enough to claim to know so much about the universe that you believe it impossible for all we see to occur naturally? The idea of a supreme being being the answer to everything is a poor attempt for the simple minded to comprehend some things that are way past our current level of understanding.

The fact that the ratio of the mass of the electron to that of the proton is 1/1836 and not 1/1815. The fact that g is 9.8 m/s/s and not 9.75 m/s/s. The ratio of electromagnetic strength to that of gravity, strong force being what it is instead of +/- 2%, .7% of the mass of hydrogen (yes that's .7% of 1.00794 u) being converted to energy during fusion instead of .8% (if it were .8% fusion would happen so rapidly that hydrogen wouldn't survived from the Big Bang), and the list goes on and on... For there to be a universe in which life could exist, all of these things have to be precisely as they are. The odds of that happening randomly is impossible. Not trying to condescend and I'm being sincere when I say this, I'd like to hear how someone could justify that not being evidence for a higher being or designer of some sort..

I'm not talking about rainbows being pretty and dogs being cute here...I'm talking about science. And I'm not trying to criticize atheism or any religion for that matter, I just want to have a discussion and see what other point of views are out there. Please don't make this a personal battle or argument...let's keep it objective so we can all try to learn something. Again, I'm not trying to attack anyone or anything, I just want to have an intelligent discussion...

Well, Aquinas, one of the ways to ignore it is, for example, to claim that "fine tuning" is just one way of seeing it; it might well be a subjective opinion, as a lot of people surely don't see the universe as something intelligent, or of an intelligent design. Slavoj Zizek, for one. Have a look:

Slavoj Zizek is not impressed with the Universe

I mean - mathematics is a science of relations. And while certain calculations might very well show correlations between values that seem significant now, who's to say this will forever be like that? Maybe we're all just living during a brief glimpse of random order (that might keep on appearing and disappearing for all eternity) amidst chaos, though we may perceive it going on for a long time? For example, the speed of light has has only been measured in the last hundred years or so. There is no way of saying it's a constant. We simply don't know. It might be gradually getting slower or faster, we just don't know. Yet scientist make a leap of faith, saying it is, in fact, a constant. And their equations work. Why? Because even mathematics is not objective. It's a way of seeing things, a way of describing objects, through comparing their measurable (using units thought-out by us) values.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

The odds of that happening randomly is impossible.

Oh really? The reason things are like they are in this universe is because they are stable. Certain elements exist in abundance because they are stable, galaxies are shaped as they are because they are stable, etc. If they were unstable (say like radioactive elements), they would not exist for long in our universe, and we wouldn't see so much of them. It is inevitable that things are as they are because instability is self-destructive and the universe has had billions of years to clean up. That things look so "perfect" is just an illusion, because this is the only way the universe could exist under its own physical laws.

Think of the universe in the same manner of evolution. Species don't "choose" to evolve a certain way when faced with a different environment, they are constantly evolving in many different ways and only the best suited mutations survive. The universe exists the way it does because only the stable elements/interactions have survived.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

The fact that the ratio of the mass of the electron to that of the proton is 1/1836 and not 1/1815. The fact that g is 9.8 m/s/s and not 9.75 m/s/s. The ratio of electromagnetic strength to that of gravity, strong force being what it is instead of +/- 2%, .7% of the mass of hydrogen (yes that's .7% of 1.00794 u) being converted to energy during fusion instead of .8% (if it were .8% fusion would happen so rapidly that hydrogen wouldn't survived from the Big Bang), and the list goes on and on... For there to be a universe in which life could exist, all of these things have to be precisely as they are. The odds of that happening randomly is impossible. Not trying to condescend and I'm being sincere when I say this, I'd like to hear how someone could justify that not being evidence for a higher being or designer of some sort..

Not impossible, just improbable. Given an infinite amount of matter and time, this is guaranteed to happen eventually. There likely are multiple universes, too. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. What appears to you to be very tiny details on paper are actually massively huge differences in real life. A difference of .1% in our base 10 number system may correspond to the difference between possible and impossible given our laws of the universe.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

I'm not talking about rainbows being pretty and dogs being cute here...I'm talking about science. And I'm not trying to criticize atheism or any religion for that matter, I just want to have a discussion and see what other point of views are out there. Please don't make this a personal battle or argument...let's keep it objective so we can all try to learn something. Again, I'm not trying to attack anyone or anything, I just want to have an intelligent discussion...

Actually I consider the argument from fine tuning to be the only good argument I've ever heard for theism (except personal religious experience, which isn't much of a clincher for me because I haven't had one), and the only one which ever gains the user my respect. I suggest you read into it a bit more, Mario, because your response does not seem to address it.

I have little doubt that fine tuning is a real phenomenon. There are various fundamental constants in the universe which, as far as we can tell, could be anything, yet seem to have an extreme bias towards conspiring to create a suitable medium for evolutionary processes (the fundamental forces have to be in very narrow ratio margins, the correct particles have to exist, etcetera).

To answer your question, Aquinas;

- Firstly your question is slightly ridiculous in that you gratuitously impose the condition 'explain X without using explanation Y'; I consider explanation Y to be the correct one so in my opinion your question is absurd (this is to say, I believe in the multiverse hypothesis).

- I think there's various reasons the believe the multiverse / anthropic bias theory:

- If we consider for example our universe alone, or perhaps our galaxy, the argument 'the chances that I happen to be in the section of volume of the universe which has just the right ingredients for biological life are tiny, therefore something designed this section' is clearly flawed, because when you come into existence, you don't do so with equal probability at any location in the universe; you only do so in the locations where you can possibly do so.

There's no reason the same logic shouldn't apply to non-homogeneity of physical laws (the above being non-homogeneous physical conditions with constant physical laws). You could, if you want, imagine an analogy to the first situation in which the whole of reality is a kind hyperuniverse where physical constants differ throughout space. Again, you can only find yourself in the patches where the constants are within the right limits, and there is no designer implied. The difference between this analogy and the concept of a multiverse seems pretty academic. The only problem you can raise with this is whether or not other universes actually exist. In my view, this is rather like cultures before science who thought that there were no other planets out there to stand on, and hence they were special and had a designer; it's an untenable assumption. In fact, I think it is an anthropocentric and arrogant assumption. If one planet can spontaneously appear, why don't many? If one universe can; why not many? I'd argue that this universe being the only one is the more extraordinary claim here. But regardless;

- At the heart of theoretical physics, the guys looking for a theory of everything found a problem: their theory does not determine the physical constants of the universe. In fact, it shows that a large range are possible, and there seems to be no good reason that ours shouldn't have different values. The physicists saw this as a flaw in the theory and tried to remove it, but this proved impossible. I think the correct conclusion to make, rather, is that these indeterminacies are inherent.

- There's a lot of rubbish in our universe which doesn't do anything. Neutrinos, for instance, cannot form a medium for the emergence of complex structures. They don't interact with anything; they're junk. They fly around the universe, completely through normal matter in fact, with no effect. This, to me, is obviously because if a universe is to be fine tuned, the restrictions places on the 'tuning' are going to necessitate some stuff which isn't important. I think the existence of 'pointless stuff' is the real clincher that the universe isn't designed by a higher intelligence. There is simply no logical reason they would create redundant particles which we were barely even able to detect, if they have an omnipotent grasp on reality. Also...

- The universe seems pretty pointless. Humanity has no single goal which the higher intelligence might want achieved. The intelligence cannot be altruistic either; I could design a better world than this in five minutes if I wanted everybody to be happy. And if the intelligence is just bored, well, it seems like a hell of an endeavour to cure boredom. The whole system also seems extremely inefficient. Humans only make up a minuscule amount of 'stuff' in the universe; the vast majority of it we'll never see.

- A final point about the argument in general is that the only thing it does is assert the existence of an intelligence. It does nothing to describe what attributes said intelligence may possess; hence it can't be used to argue for the Christian God, for example; or probably to argue for any God at all, for that matter.

I'll probably think of more problems in a while. This is a subject of great interest to me.

Not impossible, just improbable. Given an infinite amount of matter and time, this is guaranteed to happen eventually.

This has no mathematical basis. Things can have a finite possibility of happening at any moment and still have only a small probability of ever happening, even given infinite time.

This has no empirical basis. There is not infinite matter in the universe and it hasn't had anything like infinite time.

This has no logical basis. It assumes that the laws of the universe change as time progresses. Not only is this an assumption; the evidence would suggest it is an untrue assumption.

I don't mean to rape you, I just think poorly thought out thing to say.

There likely are multiple universes, too. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. What appears to you to be very tiny details on paper are actually massively huge differences in real life. A difference of .1% in our base 10 number system may correspond to the difference between possible and impossible given our laws of the universe.

As per my gargantuan post I would tend to agree with you, though it needs deeper thought, and the issue of fine tuning remains.

Also, mathematical values don't change depending on the base you write them in any more than objects change depending on the language you use to describe them.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Oh really? The reason things are like they are in this universe is because they are stable. Certain elements exist in abundance because they are stable, galaxies are shaped as they are because they are stable, etc. If they were unstable (say like radioactive elements), they would not exist for long in our universe, and we wouldn't see so much of them. It is inevitable that things are as they are because instability is self-destructive and the universe has had billions of years to clean up. That things look so "perfect" is just an illusion, because this is the only way the universe could exist under its own physical laws.

Think of the universe in the same manner of evolution. Species don't "choose" to evolve a certain way when faced with a different environment, they are constantly evolving in many different ways and only the best suited mutations survive. The universe exists the way it does because only the stable elements/interactions have survived.

The thing is, fine tuning is not about the players in the game, it's about the entire playing field.

In our universe, if constants changed by just a little, there would be no such thing as stability. Fine tuning is about universes being tuned towards providing a stage on which things are capable of being stable or unstable in the first place, not whether individual elements are stable. The only matter in our universe capable of forming remotely complex structures at all are protons, neutrons, and electrons. Everything else just floats about. It is a fact that if fundamental constants differed by only a little, these particles would not be stable, and hence nothing in the entire universe would be capable of even forming clumps, let alone advanced structures like organisms.

Originally Posted by Xei

Also, mathematical values don't change depending on the base you write them in any more than objects change depending on the language you use to describe them.

Yeah, I know that, but what I meant to say was that while .1% may look absolutely tiny to us and how we think of it, in reality, it could be an absolutely massive difference.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

Well let's put all arguments from ignorance aside and have a discussion.. Disregarding the multiverse theory, how can you ignore the fine tuning of the universe as evidence for the existence of a higher being?

The fine tuning argument imagines different combinations and magnitudes of the known constants and since none of those scenarios wouldn't allow for life (assumption) then the universe must be fine tuned. There is a big flaw in that reasoning (apart from the assumption) that seems to often be overlooked: the argument from the start invents an arbitrary limit on how much different the universe could be, merely varying magnitudes of the known constant are considered, when the possibilities are in fact endless!

If we're going to be imagining different universes, which as far as we know do not or cannot exist, there's no reason why we should exclude universes with new constants, dimensions or even completely different realities.

Okay, I'm only a freshman, so I won't even pretend to understand half of your huge post, Xei, so excuse me if I'm just repeating things that have been said. The biggest argument theists have in their arsenal has to be that, Aquinas. But personally I find it extremely self centered. The key to it being a good argument is the assumption that Earth and humans are something that absolutely had to happen at some point in the universe. A slightly more minor point is that it assumes there is no possible way for a completely different universe and a completely different kind of life to exist were the outcome of the big bang different. And as has already been said, it was in no way impossible for our universe to come about by chance. Imagine you were rolling trillion sided dice. It is highly improbably to pick a specific outcome of a single roll, but the outcome has to be SOMETHING. If I say I think a certain outcome will happen, it doesn't mean that that outcome is now impossible, it just means I put the odds against me. And, not having guessed at the outcome, but just looking at it after you roll, you know you didn't make that specific outcome come up. But it had an incredibly low chance of coming up if you didn't make it do so. Yet even considering both of those, it still came up, by chance. Looking at the universe is the same way. Of course it's unlikely that everything in our universe would occur if every possible outcome is considered, but it's here. Something had to be here if it happened by chance. Why can't ours be that chance roll?

Originally Posted by Xei

Actually I consider the argument from fine tuning to be the only good argument I've ever heard for theism (except personal religious experience, which isn't much of a clincher for me because I haven't had one), and the only one which ever gains the user my respect. I suggest you read into it a bit more, Mario, because your response does not seem to address it.

I have little doubt that fine tuning is a real phenomenon. There are various fundamental constants in the universe which, as far as we can tell, could be anything, yet seem to have an extreme bias towards conspiring to create a suitable medium for evolutionary processes (the fundamental forces have to be in very narrow ratio margins, the correct particles have to exist, etcetera).

To answer your question, Aquinas;

- Firstly your question is slightly ridiculous in that you gratuitously impose the condition 'explain X without using explanation Y'; I consider explanation Y to be the correct one so in my opinion your question is absurd (this is to say, I believe in the multiverse hypothesis).

- I think there's various reasons the believe the multiverse / anthropic bias theory:

- If we consider for example our universe alone, or perhaps our galaxy, the argument 'the chances that I happen to be in the section of volume of the universe which has just the right ingredients for biological life are tiny, therefore something designed this section' is clearly flawed, because when you come into existence, you don't do so with equal probability at any location in the universe; you only do so in the locations where you can possibly do so.

There's no reason the same logic shouldn't apply to non-homogeneity of physical laws (the above being non-homogeneous physical conditions with constant physical laws). You could, if you want, imagine an analogy to the first situation in which the whole of reality is a kind hyperuniverse where physical constants differ throughout space. Again, you can only find yourself in the patches where the constants are within the right limits, and there is no designer implied. The difference between this analogy and the concept of a multiverse seems pretty academic. The only problem you can raise with this is whether or not other universes actually exist. In my view, this is rather like cultures before science who thought that there were no other planets out there to stand on, and hence they were special and had a designer; it's an untenable assumption. In fact, I think it is an anthropocentric and arrogant assumption. If one planet can spontaneously appear, why don't many? If one universe can; why not many? I'd argue that this universe being the only one is the more extraordinary claim here. But regardless;

- At the heart of theoretical physics, the guys looking for a theory of everything found a problem: their theory does not determine the physical constants of the universe. In fact, it shows that a large range are possible, and there seems to be no good reason that ours shouldn't have different values. The physicists saw this as a flaw in the theory and tried to remove it, but this proved impossible. I think the correct conclusion to make, rather, is that these indeterminacies are inherent.

- There's a lot of rubbish in our universe which doesn't do anything. Neutrinos, for instance, cannot form a medium for the emergence of complex structures. They don't interact with anything; they're junk. They fly around the universe, completely through normal matter in fact, with no effect. This, to me, is obviously because if a universe is to be fine tuned, the restrictions places on the 'tuning' are going to necessitate some stuff which isn't important. I think the existence of 'pointless stuff' is the real clincher that the universe isn't designed by a higher intelligence. There is simply no logical reason they would create redundant particles which we were barely even able to detect, if they have an omnipotent grasp on reality. Also...

- The universe seems pretty pointless. Humanity has no single goal which the higher intelligence might want achieved. The intelligence cannot be altruistic either; I could design a better world than this in five minutes if I wanted everybody to be happy. And if the intelligence is just bored, well, it seems like a hell of an endeavour to cure boredom. The whole system also seems extremely inefficient. Humans only make up a minuscule amount of 'stuff' in the universe; the vast majority of it we'll never see.

- A final point about the argument in general is that the only thing it does is assert the existence of an intelligence. It does nothing to describe what attributes said intelligence may possess; hence it can't be used to argue for the Christian God, for example; or probably to argue for any God at all, for that matter.

I'll probably think of more problems in a while. This is a subject of great interest to me.

Very well thought out argument Xei; I agree almost completely. A multiverse can't be disproved, and might even be more likely than a designer. I don't think I'm going to know in my lifetime, but to me personally, a designer - call it God, call it mother nature, call it what you will - just seems to be the most reasonable option at the moment.

But going back to your point on "cultures before science", it could be that man just does not have the capabilities to understand the purpose of the neutrino (yet), or any other seemingly purposeless aspects of the universe...or maybe man doesn't have the ability to (better) understand the "point" of the universe. We gained an incredible amount of knowledge and physical understanding in the last 100 years alone; I can't see a reason why that rate of technological advancement wouldn't at least continue in the next 100 years..

Looking forward to hearing more on the subject..

Originally Posted by Aquinas

But going back to your point on "cultures before science", it could be that man just does not have the capabilities to understand the purpose of the neutrino (yet), or any other seemingly purposeless aspects of the universe...or maybe man doesn't have the ability to (better) understand the "point" of the universe.

Just like man may not have the capabilities to begin to detect other universes or universe "sections/bubbles"..

Originally Posted by Aquinas

We gained an incredible amount of knowledge and physical understanding in the last 100 years alone; I can't see a reason why that rate of technological advancement wouldn't at least continue in the next 100 years...

Because in the last 100 years technology hit exponential growth, which, given the barrier of physics and lack of necessity, it won't take long to hit point where very little increase is possible. I predict that would come before the end of 100 years. Though I also assume it would only be a matter of a generation or two which would grow up with such technology to be able to get past that wall, but that's an uneducated guess and still would be a pretty large stall compare to the previous 100 years.

Originally Posted by Xei

The thing is, fine tuning is not about the players in the game, it's about the entire playing field.

In our universe, if constants changed by just a little, there would be no such thing as stability. Fine tuning is about universes being tuned towards providing a stage on which things are capable of being stable or unstable in the first place, not whether individual elements are stable. The only matter in our universe capable of forming remotely complex structures at all are protons, neutrons, and electrons. Everything else just floats about. It is a fact that if fundamental constants differed by only a little, these particles would not be stable, and hence nothing in the entire universe would be capable of even forming clumps, let alone advanced structures like organisms.

Well if you're going to go so far as hypothetically altering the laws of physics, then I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that the particles in this new universe would have properties that allow them to exist (they wouldn't be part of our Standard Model). I have an easier time believing that matter and the laws of the universe are somehow correlated in a way we have yet to understand than bringing a giant floating brain into the mix... For instance, perhaps the laws of physics are a function of certain properties of matter? Instead of having matter that can only exist inside a small range of physical laws that seemingly stem out of nowhere.

The idea of a supreme intelligence feels too much like a cop out for the inexplicable based on archaic human mythology...

Originally Posted by Xedan

Because in the last 100 years technology hit exponential growth, which, given the barrier of physics and lack of necessity, it won't take long to hit point where very little increase is possible. I predict that would come before the end of 100 years. Though I also assume it would only be a matter of a generation or two which would grow up with such technology to be able to get past that wall, but that's an uneducated guess and still would be a pretty large stall compare to the previous 100 years.

Actually there is the notion of "technological singularity" which typically applies to computing and AI. The idea is that a sentient computer (originally designed by humans) would be able to construct a more advanced sentient computer on its own, faster and more efficiently than a human. This new AI would be able to build an even more complex one and so on and so on... UNTIL THE ROBOTS ENSLAVE US

Double post and off-topic, hang me .

Originally Posted by Aquinas

Well let's put all arguments from ignorance aside and have a discussion.. Disregarding the multiverse theory, how can you ignore the fine tuning of the universe as evidence for the existence of a higher being?

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 alright, 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

The problem of "fine tuning" only exists if you apply purpose to the universe. And the notion of purpose predicates some sort of consciousness, which is then, as far as we know, human like. That's why I really hate it when people use arguments that clearly originate from solely subjective human concepts. Firstly we don't know what kind of relationship we have with the objective reality, how is it exactly that we exist and in what way. Secondly I don't see why these subjective perceptions should have meaning outside of a mind of some puny human. Without the assumption of there being purpose objectively, thinking how the universe is waiting for us to evolve as a means to an end, the idea of fine tuning is pointless. Just like the puddle if it thought like a human, or just as a human itself thinking about existence, it seems the concept of purpose extrapolated on all existence can make anything believe everything is fine tuned for them in that exact moment. If you take out purpose, you just have everything and that exact moment. I guess some people are scared by this notion, as I've often explicitly heard from christians and co.

Originally Posted by Xei

Actually I consider the argument from fine tuning to be the only good argument I've ever heard for theism (except personal religious experience, which isn't much of a clincher for me because I haven't had one), and the only one which ever gains the user my respect. I suggest you read into it a bit more, Mario, because your response does not seem to address it.

I'm actually going to disagree with Xei here. The fine tuning argument is not a good one at all, because it relies on massive assumptions. It assumes that there was no alternative set of laws. It ignores the possibility that the Universe may be working as a large scale RNG; if that is the case, then eventually the right number will come up.

We don't even know enough to call the odds. For all we know the idea of the strong force being 2% less could be as nonsensical as saying "what if Pi were 2% less". And what about the alternate possibility that new laws would allow particles that are unstable in our universe to form?

Furthermore, how can a Universe generally so hostile and barren to life be considered fine tuned for life? It's a ridiculous notion. If I built a nonsensically proportioned house, no one in their right mind would call it fine tuned for human occupation.

And the argument that some being fiddled the knobs to the right values isn't an argument at all. It's a miracle 'explanation' which of course isn't one at all. Asserting that a being of some kind chose these values has even more explaining to do as well, because it has to explain that being, and how they have the intelligence and power to alter such things. It's an even worse 'explanation'.

I'm astounded at the lengths of over-complication in this thread... For something as simple as "fine tuning"?

Bonsay, that is a great point! I want to expand on it a little, however. I don't think it ends there and it may be very surprising. Using your argument, we can actually say that it is impossible to explain, much less prove, the truth of the whole universe. This is just one way of how universal truths are actually part of a "higher-being".

Originally Posted by Aquinas

Disregarding the multiverse theory, how can you ignore the fine tuning of the universe as evidence for the existence of a higher being?

I essentially agree with what you're saying, but all "evidence" will be insufficient by its model, and in conjunction with the model of a higher-being. There is really no "evidence", as it is commonly known, for a "higher being" - it exists in a completely different dimension of experience.

If:

1. The "higher-being" exists.
2. There is no evidence for one.

then:

The being is "higher" than evidence.

Similarly; if:

1. God = context of all existence/reality (thus God is the total encompassing reality and not a white-bearded man in the sky, which would not suffice as contextual).
2. Evidence = content.
3. There is no evidence for God.

then:

God exists to include evidence but is also beyond it.

What is evidence, after all? It is almost a meme. Reality doesn't need evidence because ultimately it is not objective. On the other hand, everything else requires proof because it is not capable of encompassing the whole universe in the same way as God. I.e. Claiming God exists is not the same as claiming a flying spaghetti monster exists (it doesn't even posses universal truths).

To take this further, let's look at "fine tuning" again. "Fine tuning" can be a representation of the greater context (higher-being), but because it is subjective phrase, its quality tends to be caught in the muck of perceptual duality and confused by introducing seeming opposites. If God created a perfect universe, then everything must already be "finely tuned", yes. Even if somebody says: "But disasters are not demonstrating "fine tuning", and neither are human beings' illogical views. And the universe is obviously chaotic, and this is wrong..." etc. So this means that, disasters, chaos and everything are still, actually "finely tuned" and not "badly tuned." When we can see that "fine tuning" is a limited abstraction and yet while everything is created perfectly, then calling it "fine tuning" or "bad tuning" becomes meaningless in the end because at that point, distinctions are no longer necessary. I think this really contributes to the understanding of "wordless beauty" because in that sense, words are not necessary either. You can say that everything is beautiful or Divine, and yet it's not "evidence" for a higher-being because it is not distinguishable from anything else that exists, and it is not equal to what exists either. Having said this, one may as well just say that "reality is evidence for God", but that does not rest well with science, not because it is wrong, but because of how the models already coexist.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I'm actually going to disagree with Xei here. The fine tuning argument is not a good one at all, because it relies on massive assumptions. It assumes that there was no alternative set of laws. It ignores the possibility that the Universe may be working as a large scale RNG; if that is the case, then eventually the right number will come up.

In a limited sense, I think you are right. But "fine tuning" is a descriptive term that may attempt to describe the beauty or structure of something. It isn't really about literal "fine tuning" alone, since that is obviously a subjective opinion about which the universe is "tuned" for. An instrument is said to be "finely tuned" when it is tuned correctly to typical orderly music purposes, and yet it can still be "finely tuned" for totally "incorrect" tuning (according to normal standards, etc). Meaning depends on context.

And besides, there is no use saying that "... it relies on massive assumptions. It assumes that there was no alternative set of laws."; such a stance renders no conclusion possible, does it not? Then is there really any use bothering with a thing called a "conclusion". What's there to conclude? In the end, a conclusion about God is redundant anyway. Does the act of concluding that the sky is blue help you notice that it is blue? No, it helps you describe it. But describing it is meaningless when it comes to proving a "higher being", much less proving that the sky is blue. Even measuring the wavelength of the light from the sky (at the time it is blue) technically doesn't prove that it is blue, it merely is an additional description for the term "blue", as is its definition.

So what is it really about? It is about seeing the intrinsic beauty in everything, not "fine tuning" of everything, because to the layman, "fine tuning" is going to more easily set up the probable opposite of "bad tuning". Fine tuning is arbitrary, whereas intrinsic beauty is essential to a thing's existence. One might argue that beauty is also based off opinion, but in this case there is far less ground for opinion to stand. What do you think is left when you no longer have an opinion about what is real? Real beauty rests in its own identity. That is part of the real meaning of God: as existence is; already.

And the argument that some being fiddled the knobs to the right values isn't an argument at all. It's a miracle 'explanation' which of course isn't one at all. Asserting that a being of some kind chose these values has even more explaining to do as well, because it has to explain that being, and how they have the intelligence and power to alter such things. It's an even worse 'explanation'.

That's quite true; an explanation is not needed. But that is not better or worse than an explanation. The atheist may say "oh but I see no evidence for God", or "There are many things that are imperfect about the universe" But the atheist is unaware of the level of adjustment such a concept of "God" requires. At depth, it requires nothing (it needs letting go of concepts). Really, the atheist ignores the possibility of a higher being because of his presumptive view about the universe. Atheism has its own arbitrary "knob values", but they only justify atheism, not the truth of the universe. The atheist typically is not willing to give up his precious views for that. An "explanation", as such, is extraneous to reality and God.

Originally Posted by really

I'm astounded at the lengths of over-complication in this thread... For something as simple as "fine tuning"?...An "explanation", as such, is extraneous to reality and God.

You're absolutely right. I don't need something as silly as evidence. There is a god. And there are unicorns, too. And leprechauns. And a teakettle in the asteroid belt. And an underground civilization of crab people. Thank you for opening my eyes.

I think most of you do not completely understand the logic behind the fine tuning argument. But first let me say this - there could be another set of physical laws and constants that would have been hospitable to life other than that of our current universe. We cannot know that ours is the only set that produces a viable universe. However, the fact is that the amount of universes capable of supporting life (based on their physical constraints and constants) is infinitesimally small when compared to those that could not support life. The argument that the universe is just a RNG would claim that the laws of the universe change with time (and with the facts and evidence at the moment, this would seem to be much more fallacious than a design theory). And to say that a life supporting universe was "bound to happen" would be fallacious as well (see Xei's post). So if you choose to be a single-universe atheist and believe in a one in a googolplex chance - that's your right to do so.

If the strength of the big bang had differed by one part in 1060, life would not be possible. An accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target (John Jefferson Davis).

If gravity had differed by one part in 10^40, life would not exist as we know it.

A single universe atheist can choose to reduce all of this to chance, but I'll take a more statistically logical approach..

Originally Posted by Aquinas

If the strength of the big bang had differed by one part in 1060, life would not be possible.

Source?

Originally Posted by Aquinas

A single universe atheist can choose to reduce all of this to chance, but I'll take a more statistically logical approach..

Which approach is that?

Originally Posted by Aquinas

I think most of you do not completely understand the logic behind the fine tuning argument....

I think we do.

What do you say about my hypothesis. There are gravitational waves that constitute a consciousness and one is at this very moment debating with others about fine tuning in some x universe. One says that only the universes with x gravitational constants are, in the possibility of a multverse, very unlikely and therefore it's better to assume fine tuning due to the existence of these gravitational entities. In y universe, a consciousness which emerged in some quark plasma debates with others how their universe is fine-tuned by god supported by the same logic. In this universe you are debating with us...

With what "authority" and logic do we limit "biological consciousness" as the best thing that can happen? So good that the universe is here for us, fine tuned to make us basically. Is the universe to be judged by entities that spout information which is in a context only percieved by these same entities, with which they define the universe based on the existence and perceptions of said entities? Why?

Humans will have human gods, aliens will have alien gods. A hammer thinks the universe is a nail hammered down by the infinitely large hammer. I surmise this is not too new agey, but I really don't think there should be a precedence of human concepts when debating something so "over our heads" as existence, the whole uni/multiverse, god - absolute truth. We are thoughts from the brains of monkeys. Tools of survival for a silly strand of DNA. In a spontaneous game of "who has the best tool" we "consciousnesses" emerged. Some concentrate on being tools, others brake away a bit and try to find purpose for existence. I'm not saying that that's the whole story... I am debating whether it's the best thing to let a tool decide what the universe is, when all it can think is in terms of "hammers and nails" basically. Science tells it as it is, we humans are the ones who say "it looks incredibly like a nail".

Beside this as my opinion. Some more directly related to your argument:
-You don't know how many universes there could be, with what kind of constants.
-If constants can differ between universes, what are they limited by?
-If a person wins a lottery, his win is statistically logical? How is this different from winning an existence?
-If one of those questions/assumptions is correct, how can you quote statistics as proof of fine tuning?

I don't hail as a pro statistical analyst or physicist. But you seem very sure in the way your numbers support "god". Maybe you can answer?