Thread: Question for Atheists.

Hey guys, I realize I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'm very interested in the fine-tuning argument. I do not understand it, it seems obviously invalid to me for two reasons and I would love to get some feedback as to why these are not problems.

1) The idea that fundamental factors such as the weights of particles or the strengths of forces could be different seems arbitrary to me. We have no idea why things are the way they are, and for all we know these factors could be inextricably related in such a way that asking 'what if they were different' is simply nonsensical. Where does the idea that fundamental characteristics of the universe are somehow arbitrary or could have been different come from, and is there any support for it?

2) If we accept that these crucial characteristics could have been different - hell, if they had been chosen at random as the universe began, why is it a problem that things could have been different? Surely the argument isn't that 'our' version of the universe, non-collapsed and friendly to carbon life forms, is somehow better than any other option? Even if there had been a 99.99999 percent chance of the big bang just imploding, so what? If it had, we wouldn't be here. The fact that we can observe that we are here is a tautology, and has nothing to do with statistics or probability. It seems like rolling a billion-sided die and then arguing that since it was so unlikely to land on 1308943, it must have been fine-tuned to do so.

I apologize if you've already addressed these issues Aquinas, I just wanted to pose them to you directly so that I can get a straight answer. It would be great if you could respond! Thanks!

Originally Posted by thegnome54

It seems like rolling a billion-sided die and then arguing that since it was so unlikely to land on 1308943, it must have been fine-tuned to do so.

great minds think alike, only I said trillion sided. And he hasn't addressed them, he just responds to the most random, unimportant part he can and hopes no one presses him to answer the specific question. I swear I would not be surprised if he points out incorrect grammar next time someone asks him something.

And, Aquinas, if you want to redeem yourself, try answering questions instead of correcting them or saying "such questions are absurd unless the answer is a higher force".

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Hey guys, I realize I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'm very interested in the fine-tuning argument. I do not understand it, it seems obviously invalid to me for two reasons and I would love to get some feedback as to why these are not problems.

1) The idea that fundamental factors such as the weights of particles or the strengths of forces could be different seems arbitrary to me. We have no idea why things are the way they are, and for all we know these factors could be inextricably related in such a way that asking 'what if they were different' is simply nonsensical. Where does the idea that fundamental characteristics of the universe are somehow arbitrary or could have been different come from, and is there any support for it?

2) If we accept that these crucial characteristics could have been different - hell, if they had been chosen at random as the universe began, why is it a problem that things could have been different? Surely the argument isn't that 'our' version of the universe, non-collapsed and friendly to carbon life forms, is somehow better than any other option? Even if there had been a 99.99999 percent chance of the big bang just imploding, so what? If it had, we wouldn't be here. The fact that we can observe that we are here is a tautology, and has nothing to do with statistics or probability. It seems like rolling a billion-sided die and then arguing that since it was so unlikely to land on 1308943, it must have been fine-tuned to do so.

I apologize if you've already addressed these issues Aquinas, I just wanted to pose them to you directly so that I can get a straight answer. It would be great if you could respond! Thanks!

Wanted to respond sooner but I just can't find the time now. I'll be on later tonight (a few hours) with my two cents, I apologize for taking so long. Just don't want anyone to think I've "given up" or was "trolling" lol.

Xei - I thought I still had it installed but I can't seem to find it. I know I could change the rules on mine too though - fun to try at least.. It's incredible the complexity that could stem from such a simple concept and rules.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Hey guys, I realize I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'm very interested in the fine-tuning argument. I do not understand it, it seems obviously invalid to me for two reasons and I would love to get some feedback as to why these are not problems.

1) The idea that fundamental factors such as the weights of particles or the strengths of forces could be different seems arbitrary to me. We have no idea why things are the way they are, and for all we know these factors could be inextricably related in such a way that asking 'what if they were different' is simply nonsensical. Where does the idea that fundamental characteristics of the universe are somehow arbitrary or could have been different come from, and is there any support for it?

2) If we accept that these crucial characteristics could have been different - hell, if they had been chosen at random as the universe began, why is it a problem that things could have been different? Surely the argument isn't that 'our' version of the universe, non-collapsed and friendly to carbon life forms, is somehow better than any other option? Even if there had been a 99.99999 percent chance of the big bang just imploding, so what? If it had, we wouldn't be here. The fact that we can observe that we are here is a tautology, and has nothing to do with statistics or probability. It seems like rolling a billion-sided die and then arguing that since it was so unlikely to land on 1308943, it must have been fine-tuned to do so.

I apologize if you've already addressed these issues Aquinas, I just wanted to pose them to you directly so that I can get a straight answer. It would be great if you could respond! Thanks!

Again, sorry it took so long for a response. Let me know any objections that you have, again, I'd like for this to be a thought provoking discussion. It's possible you could come up with an argument to change my mind completely.

As for the first question, scientifically, there's no reason that the values for those constants couldn't be changed. But there is still obviously the possibility that they are fixed and unchangeable. But that has no significance to the fine tuning argument, and in fact, I would argue that if the variables were known to be fixed, it would even more strongly imply a designer. Let's say for example, that the strong nuclear force constant were fixed at it's current "value". We would then be forced to ask why it was fixed at that particular value, would we not? If it were the slightest percentage larger, be it two times more or ten times more, no hydrogen would form, the nuclei for most life essential elements would be unstable, and the chemistry for life would not be possible. If it were that much smaller, no elements more massive than hydrogen would form, again leaving life as impossible. On a scale of, let's say, 1 to 1000 (a much smaller scale than actually exists), the value of strong nuclear force would have to be fixed at 500 for life to exist. Anything less, no life, anything more, no life. It seems rather obvious to me that for a value to be fixed so precisely at the only number that would make life possible, would imply that that value was fixed there for a reason - for life as we know it to exist. And keep in mind that that's only one of the numerous constants needing to be precisely fixed for life.

I think what separates this from being just shear chance or just the number 1308943 on a dice roll, and leading into your next question - is the fact that lifeless universes are on either side of that "roll". It would be completely different if, say, we had a hundred sided dice and a 25 meant life could exist, a handful meant there were planets but no life, a handful were no life, a handful were only floating atoms, etc, etc. But the fact is that 1-49 are lifeless universes, 50 is a life-supporting universe, 51-100 are lifeless universes, and that's on an impossibly small scale. The best analogy I've seen that addresses your second question is that of surviving a 100 man firing squad execution unharmed (in this case, more appropriate would be a 1,000,000,000 man firing squad). Your objection to the fine tuning argument here is analogous to saying "of course the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn't be around to notice I'm still alive. A much better, more scientific and logical approach would be to consider why such an unlikely event occurred, would it not? Scientifically speaking, wouldn't a better explanation be required that offered more, well actually any, resolution?

So, like I said, that's a really good question. And I guess the best explanation I can give (other than the above), is based on statistics (which everyone here seems to despise lol) - but the problem with everyone's billion or trillion sided dice analogy is that in reality, it's more than a 10^1000 sided die. I will concede that there is a possibility that this world came to be solely by chance. But that chance is greater than 1 in 10^1000, in fact I would, and have, argued that it is one out of infinity.

Maybe if I add a little visual to those statistics, it will help people better understand my argument for statistics. Using only one of the numerous parameters, the ratio of electrons to protons, here is a visual for the odds of that specific value occurring and life existing (1 in 10^37):

"Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37." (Dr. Hugh Ross)

Now imagine doing that 30 times and picking the red one in all of them (any normal dime means a lifeless universe) - those are the odds of this universe occurring by chance.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

It seems rather obvious to me that for a value to be fixed so precisely at the only number that would make life possible, would imply that that value was fixed there for a reason - for life as we know it to exist. And keep in mind that that's only one of the numerous constants needing to be precisely fixed for life.

I'd like to bring up neutrinos again now. We don't know what they do or if they have a purpose. So why is that not the case on most things in the universe. Consider how many other things in the universe had such a small chance of occurring. You're still holding life at a value above all else by just assuming it must be what the universe was shaped for. You're assuming that the whole universe was made simply so we can exist. Let me give YOU a visual. Think of earth. Now think of how many beaches are on earth. Now think of how much sand is on those beaches. For every grain of sand it is assumed there are at least a million stars in the universe. Now thats JUST stars, that doesn't include planets, asteroids, comets, nebulae, and any other crazy shit shoved into the universe. And don't forget all the empty space. We are one planet. All of that exists just for our lowly little space rock?

"of course the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn't be around to notice I'm still alive".

You should have just stopped there because thats the only sentence that isn't based on wild assumptions.

A much better, more scientific and logical approach would be to consider why such an unlikely event occurred, would it not? Scientifically speaking, wouldn't a better explanation be required that offered more, well actually any, resolution?

The key word there is "better". Explain how a magic pixie fairy poofing everything into existence is in any way shape or form more scientific than chance. And a better solution is never required, it is only hoped for. If there is something that explains everything flawlessly, another solution is only needed if it is in fact better.

but the problem with everyone's billion or trillion sided dice analogy is that in reality, it's more than a 10^1000 sided die.

It's called a model. Models have limits, that's the whole point of them. The same logic used for a ten sided die transfers all the way up to a nearly infinite number of sides. And that logic is that bad odds does not and never has or will mean the same thing as impossible. Until you understand that you wont understand why we don't except fine tuning.

"Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37."

So of course if he does get the red one it means he's magic. Because that's what fine tuning suggests.

.