Fine tuning rebut

[Sternwallow]

Both theists and some scientists have hypothesized that, if any one of the critical values in physics had a value even minutely different than the value we have found empirically, we (this particular collection of intelligent individuals, all 6 Billion + of us) would not have been born and lived until this ragged moment in history, the so-called present.

The theists take this as clear proof that a stupefyingly complex and powerful designer/builder must have been its author. Some few scientists have even embraced this point of view and have become theists because of it, "at which point they stop being very smart guys" (paraphrasing R. Dawkins)

Let's take the case of the strong electro force just to have a concrete item to talk about. Scientists and theists alike agree that, if it were as much as 5% stronger, stars could not form so neither could galaxies or squids or us.

In that case, would an external observer say "I am convinced that the universe must have been designed precisely and specifically not to be conducive to intelligent life".

Much more likely that a dispassionate intelligent observer would say of that universe "those critical values certainly appear to have been set randomly (subtext: 'since nothing there has any appeal to my personal interest')."

Intelligent life is tunedm adjustedm selcted,
to be a product of all of the critical physical values plus an unbroken chain of happy (for us) events like the Yucatan asteroid strike. This directly parallels the fact that you, dear reader, are the current end of an unbroken line of animals all of whom managed to live long enough to reproduce. "Life is a consequence of the critical values, not the other way around. Whatever fine tuning occurred, it was not with distant (4 Billion years) life culminating in us as a goal.

[ghoulslime]

Theists rejoicing at the “finely-tuned” universe are like flies exclaiming their magnificence, while sitting on a turd in any random toilet. Their high regard for themselves will certainly vanish when it comes time to flush. Claiming that the universe, and our tiny place in it, at present is “finely-tuned” to allow life to persist, is nothing short of silly. The area in the known universe where life cannot flourish is vast. This tiny rock on which we find ourselves, regardless of how loudly we vociferate our supreme eminence to the high heavens, will someday be out of tune. One way or another, the flush is coming.

[Smellyoldgit]

Sternwallow wrote

"Life is a consequence of the critical values"

Shirly the whole 'argument' needs to be no more complex than this?

[Sternwallow]

ghoulslime wrote

Theists rejoicing at the “finely-tuned” universe are like flies exclaiming their magnificence, while sitting on a turd in any random toilet. Their high regard for themselves will certainly vanish when it comes time to flush. Claiming that the universe, and our tiny place in it, at present is “finely-tuned” to allow life to persist, is nothing short of silly. The area in the known universe where life cannot flourish is vast. This tiny rock on which we find ourselves, regardless of how loudly we vociferate our supreme eminence to the high heavens, will someday be out of tune. One way or another, the flush is coming.

I think that the acceptance of this fine tuning as an argument for God by serious scientists needs a concrete refutation.

I share Hitchens' dismay that the NAS has as many as 10% believers. If fine tuning is responsible for any of that percentage, it is worrisome.

[Sternwallow]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Shirly the whole 'argument' needs to be no more complex than this?

I would have thought so if it weren't for its acceptance by some serious and famous scientists.

[ILOVEJESUS]

If you have many, (dare I say infinite) existences and mulit universe, is life not a probability? Theoretical I know, but more probably to be right in some way than god. Whatever god actually is. Hmmmmmm

[Sternwallow]

The key for life is pattern (in our experience, mostly chemical) replication. The key for evolution is replication with inheritable variation. So, yes, arbitrarily complex life is likely in any environment that permits such a form of replication. For all that we currently know of life, that is, our kind of life, three requirements are carbon, liquid water and energy.

Therefore, God chose fundamental physical values that ultimately lead to carbon, water and localized energy sources just so we can make and correct typoos.

[Sternwallow]

I would have been satisfied with a single universe (though, as with pistachios, I would wonder "why stop at one?") that had the fundamental physical values locked in a single relationship and not tweakable even by God.

Before the multi-verse hypothesis became widely known, I would have answered Einstein's question about whether God had any choice in setting the numbers, with a simple "no".

Like Pi and e in Euler's equation "e^(i*Pi) + 1 = 0", the values are bound together such that a different value of Pi would completely control the value of e and vice-versa.

[ghoulslime]

Sternwallow wrote

I think that the acceptance of this fine tuning as an argument for God by serious scientists needs a concrete refutation.

I share Hitchens' dismay that the NAS has as many as 10% believers. If fine tuning is responsible for any of that percentage, it is worrisome.

As Dawkins has astutely pointed out, once serious scientists start trying to force the facts to fit their preconceived notions, they cease to be serious scientists. I would like to see some of these advocates of gods and magic frogs verbally crucified in a debate with a more intellectually honest person, such as...Richard Dawkins perhaps? (Well RD, you game, man?)

It is genuinely disturbing that so many closet theists are masquerading as objective scientists.

[ghoulslime]

This might be a good time to point out that most atheists, if provided with sufficient evidence of gods or any other facts, regardless of how farfetched they may seem before ample evidence is obtained, would simply shrug their shoulders and say, "cool!" That is to say, atheists/agnostics should maintain intellectual objectivity, and should be willing to adjust their position as knowledge is updated - just like scientific methodology.

I would personally be willing, and in fact elated, to learn that unicorn frogs from the 7th parallel universe were responsible for our existence, and that the purpose of everything is not 47, but in fact, 69! Every fallacious religious dogma that obscures our knowledge of truth is an impediment to truth.

Do you think the average Jesus eater or murderer for Mohammed (shit be in his face) would be willing to accept so readily any facts that contradicted their religious positions?

Me thinks can haz not!

[Sternwallow]

Scientists are more accepting of valid evidence than regular or religious folks, as they should, and they do change their position more readily. Thus it is a real anomaly that Hoyle stubbornly kept the steady state theory and Einstein couldn't accept the randomness of quantum activity. This is why, for me, a religious scientist is such a discordant notion.

I think that any idea that is held for emotional reasons will resist change for any other reason including reason.

It is almost a paradox that scientist's egos very often motivate development and presentation of scientific theories, yet, those theories must be purged of ego taint, in order to be good science.

Of course, I would be among the first to accept and even embrace any valid refutation of Sternwallow's Law of Malevolent Probabilities (a synthesis of the various familiar "butter-side-down", "recently washed car" rules) even though the extensive success of that Law does reflect well on my own scientific acumen.

I will bet, though, that, if Newton had the opportunity to react to Einstein trashing his notion of "angels nudging the planets to keep their orbits stable", he would have been a total dick about it, if only because the laws had his name on them.

[ghoulslime]

Sternwallow wrote

Scientists are more accepting of valid evidence than regular or religious folks, as they should, and they do change their position more readily. Thus it is a real anomaly that Hoyle stubbornly kept the steady state theory and Einstein couldn't accept the randomness of quantum activity. This is why, for me, a religious scientist is such a discordant notion.

I think that any idea that is held for emotional reasons will resist change for any other reason including reason.

It is almost a paradox that scientist's egos very often motivate development and presentation of scientific theories, yet, those theories must be purged of ego taint, in order to be good science.

Of course, I would be among the first to accept and even embrace any valid refutation of Sternwallow's Law of Malevolent Probabilities (a synthesis of the various familiar "butter-side-down", "recently washed car" rules) even though the extensive success of that Law does reflect well on my own scientific acumen.

I will bet, though, that, if Newton had the opportunity to react to Einstein trashing his notion of "angels nudging the planets to keep their orbits stable", he would have been a total dick about it, if only because the laws had his name on them.

I am still pondering Sternwallow's Law of Pistachios.

This Pi you speak of also has tantalizing mystic. Please tell me that French Apple is the way and the light.

[West491]

I'm glad you chose to address this topic because this is one of my weak points when debating a theist.

In the past, whenever I hear an atheist respond to the fine-tuning argument, he says something along the lines of, "Well of course you think the universe is fine tuned because you're hear to observe it". To tell the truth, I never really understood this rebuttal. However, now that you've explained it, the rebuttal makes a bit more sense. You know how sometimes your mind gets tangled up with the simple things? Erm, nevermind, I need clarification please:

Are you saying that if we (all 6 billion+ of us) weren't here, then an outside observer (outside of this universe ?) , let's call him Bob, would look at our universe and say "That universe is not fine-tuned." Therefore for us to say that the universe is fine tuned is just as plausible as Bob's saying that the universe is not fine tuned. I'm kinda lost here.

[PanAtheist]

If a very-special-super-living-being could fix the constants of reality, why would it have cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, and biological evolution work to bring humans about, and not just fix humans straight into existence? (And any very-special-super-living-being who uses natural selection to create living things is an utter cunt/bastard).

And how would "it" know that these constants are right anyway?

There is no fine-tuning argument. It is just nonsense. Nothing to rebut.

And not forgetting the basics : a very-special-super-living-being who establishes the constants of reality so life is possible. It don't make sense sir. Life reproduces, develops, and grows - it doesn't create itself. That would be silly.

[Sternwallow]

ghoulslime wrote

I am still pondering Sternwallow's Law of Pistachios.

This Pi you speak of also has tantalizing mystic. Please tell me that French Apple is the way and the light.

Ah, you missed ze central clue; zis iz Pistachio Pi, mon ami.