Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 18
 [ 352 posts ] 
The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism
Author Message
Blog of ReasonHelperUser avatarPosts: 240Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:28 pmLocation: League of Reason

Post The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:35 am
thenexttodiePosts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

"First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; "


No, if the fine-tuning was different, then basically nothing in this universe would exist. It's not just about life. Major fail.
Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:02 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2913Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:"First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; "


No, if the fine-tuning was different, then basically nothing in this universe would exist. It's not just about life. Major fail.

That's not the case.

This is a common misconception of creationists.

It's not "all-or-nothing" - it works more like an equaliser: changing the values of parameters up or down simply shifts the values of the others, so you get different universes as a result.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:12 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

quote="thenexttodie"]"First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; "


No, if the fine-tuning was different, then basically nothing in this universe would exist. It's not just about life. Major fail.[/quote]
Dragan Glas wrote:That's not the case.
Actually it is the case.

Dragan Glas wrote:This is a common misconception of creationists.
Nope. When scientists talk about the universe being "fine tuned for life"
they mostly talking about the universe being fine tuned for existence of matter, elements and stars.


Dragan Glas wrote:It's not "all-or-nothing" - it works more like an equaliser: changing the values of parameters up or down simply shifts the values of the others, so you get different universes as a result.


What you would get in this universe would be a lack of matter, elements and stars.
Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:55 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2913Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:"First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; "


No, if the fine-tuning was different, then basically nothing in this universe would exist. It's not just about life. Major fail.

Dragan Glas wrote:That's not the case.
Actually it is the case.

Dragan Glas wrote:This is a common misconception of creationists.
Nope. When scientists talk about the universe being "fine tuned for life"
they mostly talking about the universe being fine tuned for existence of matter, elements and stars.


Dragan Glas wrote:It's not "all-or-nothing" - it works more like an equaliser: changing the values of parameters up or down simply shifts the values of the others, so you get different universes as a result.


What you would get in this universe would be a lack of matter, elements and stars.

This is completely wrong.

Would you kindly show from where you get this idea?

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:38 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:"First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; "


No, if the fine-tuning was different, then basically nothing in this universe would exist. It's not just about life. Major fail.

That's not the case.

This is a common misconception of creationists.

It's not "all-or-nothing" - it works more like an equaliser: changing the values of parameters up or down simply shifts the values of the others, so you get different universes as a result.

Kindest regards,

James


Beyond what you pointed out, the rest of the paragraph that thenexttodie quoted addresses his objection perfectly:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; an example of a counterfactual conditional. Simply because things would be different does not mean that life or a universe could not exist. They may not be as we see them today, but that alone does not mean that the possibility for life and a universe are dependent on the fine-tuning of the universe as we know it. This is an unjustified claim built into the argument that should be challenged. Beyond that, the theist also has not shown that the fine-tuning of our universe could be anything different. It could just as easily be that all possible universes have the same fine-tuning.

[Emphasis on what was left out.]


I love it when the objections are already addressed. Makes my job easy. In addition, this is not the first time thenexttodie has left out what I said and failed to make a point with it.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:49 pm
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Dragan Glas wrote:This is completely wrong.

Would you kindly show from where you get this idea?

Kindest regards,

James


Scientists. Secular scientists. Any scientist who is envolved in this field, can confirm this. Are there none on this forum?
Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:40 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

he_who_is_nobody wrote:First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; an example of a counterfactual conditional. Simply because things would be different does not mean that life or a universe could not exist. They may not be as we see them today, but that alone does not mean that the possibility for life and a universe are dependent on the fine-tuning of the universe as we know it. This is an unjustified claim built into the argument that should be challenged. Beyond that, the theist also has not shown that the fine-tuning of our universe could be anything different. It could just as easily be that all possible universes have the same fine-tuning.

[Emphasis on what was left out.]


To me, you're almost starting to sound like a creationist.

I think you, for the most part, are confusing what would happen in this real universe, with what could happen in an imaginary universe.
Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:57 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 702Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:This is completely wrong.

Would you kindly show from where you get this idea?

Kindest regards,

James


Scientists. Secular scientists. Any scientist who is envolved in this field, can confirm this. Are there none on this forum?


I think we had one who was at least familiar with cosmology. Pretty sure he was banned
Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:36 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2913Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:This is completely wrong.

Would you kindly show from where you get this idea?

Kindest regards,

James


Scientists. Secular scientists. Any scientist who is envolved in this field, can confirm this. Are there none on this forum?

I was actually looking for citations rather than your claim that "scientists .... can confirm this".

Give us actual quotes with links.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:19 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Dragan Glas wrote:This is completely wrong.

Would you kindly show from where you get this idea?

Kindest regards,

James


thenexttodie wrote:[Scientists. Secular scientists. Any scientist who is envolved in this field, can confirm this. Are there none on this forum?


itsdemtitans wrote:I think we had one who was at least familiar with cosmology. Pretty sure he was banned


Well, maybe they should un-ban him and put him on double secret probation instead!
Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:02 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2913Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:This is completely wrong.

Would you kindly show from where you get this idea?

Kindest regards,

James


thenexttodie wrote:[Scientists. Secular scientists. Any scientist who is envolved in this field, can confirm this. Are there none on this forum?


itsdemtitans wrote:I think we had one who was at least familiar with cosmology. Pretty sure he was banned


Well, maybe they should un-ban him and put him on double secret probation instead!

Doesn't answer my question - cite sources for your claim.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:44 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Doesn't answer my question - cite sources for your claim.

Kindest regards,

James


:lol:

Similar to what I pointed out above, this again is not the first time thenexttodie has made claims, yet was unable to back it up with sources.

It appears you are barking up the wrong tree if you think you are going to have an honest discussion with thenexttodie.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:22 pm
YIM WWW
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

itsdemtitans wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:Scientists. Secular scientists. Any scientist who is envolved in this field, can confirm this. Are there none on this forum?


I think we had one who was at least familiar with cosmology. Pretty sure he was banned


Before the Big Bang Part I and Part 2

;)
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:42 pm
YIM WWW
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 702Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Before the Big Bang Part I and Part 2

;)


HE LIVES
Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:52 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

itsdemtitans wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Before the Big Bang Part I and Part 2

;)


HE LIVES


Image
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:41 am
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Dragan Glas wrote:Doesn't answer my question - cite sources for your claim.

Kindest regards,

James


Paul Steinhardt, in an interview published in Scientific American, 12.1.2014.

"From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost — fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved."

Notice how the word "Life" is not mentioned anywhere in the above quote.

I think that when you are talking about an equalizer here

Dragon Glas "It's not "all-or-nothing" - it works more like an equaliser: changing the values of parameters up or down simply shifts the values of the others, so you get different universes as a result."

What you are really talking about is substituting one fine tuning for another, without evening knowing it.
Mon May 02, 2016 6:30 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2913Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Doesn't answer my question - cite sources for your claim.

Kindest regards,

James


Paul Steinhardt, in an interview published in Scientific American, 12.1.2014.

"From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost — fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved."

The quote and interview is found here.

It should be noted that he supports an alternative to the Inflation model: the Steinhardt-Turok "Cyclic Universe" model.

thenexttodie wrote:Notice how the word "Life" is not mentioned anywhere in the above quote.

Again, you've completely missed the point.

Theists/creationists use "fine-tuning" exclusively in regard to life - that the universe exists for the purpose of life. Scientists don't.

You appear to be confusing a number of things as has been pointed out by several of us:

1) As noted above, scientists and theists/creationists use the term differently;
2) Theists/creationists assume that it's an "either-or" situation - it's not.

thenexttodie wrote:I think that when you are talking about an equalizer here

Dragon Glas "It's not "all-or-nothing" - it works more like an equaliser: changing the values of parameters up or down simply shifts the values of the others, so you get different universes as a result."

What you are really talking about is substituting one fine tuning for another, without evening knowing it.

The difference is HWIN and I are using the term as it's used in science - creationists are misusing it.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue May 03, 2016 1:11 am
ldmitrukUser avatarPosts: 229Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:47 pmLocation: Edmonton, Alberta Gender: Cake

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Hi,

Here's a quick read on The Fine-Tuning Argument at Skeptic, THE NON-FINE-TUNED UNIVERSE:
The Astronomical Failure of the Cosmological Argument for Theism
. The article is a nice easy read on how the Fine-Tuning Argument fails.

Cheers!
Wed May 04, 2016 7:02 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Dragan Glas wrote:.

It should be noted that he supports an alternative to the Inflation model: the Steinhardt-Turok "Cyclic Universe" model.


He can support whichever model he wants.


Dragan Glas wrote:.Again, you've completely missed the point.

Theists/creationists use "fine-tuning" exclusively in regard to life - that the universe exists for the purpose of life. Scientists don't.

You appear to be confusing a number of things as has been pointed out by several of us:

1) As noted above, scientists and theists/creationists use the term differently;
2) Theists/creationists assume that it's an "either-or" situation - it's not.

thenexttodie wrote:I think that when you are talking about an equalizer here

Dragon Glas "It's not "all-or-nothing" - it works more like an equaliser: changing the values of parameters up or down simply shifts the values of the others, so you get different universes as a result."

What you are really talking about is substituting one fine tuning for another, without evening knowing it.


Dragan Glas wrote:.The difference is HWIN and I are using the term as it's used in science - creationists are misusing it.

Kindest regards,

James


Well you wouldn't expect an Atheist to say the universe is fined tuned for life because that would imply the existence of God, or at least the exiestence of a purpose
Laurence Krauss will say from time to time, something like, "You can't use science to show a purpose." Yet he basically admits this as being a restraint he willfully chooses to impose upon himself when he says science cannot be used to prove God does not exist. Neither sentiment has been proven useful or even accurate, yet he is willfully constrained by both.

I see no reason why Creationists should hold themselves to these same constraints.
We certainly can deduce purpose through observation. I just recently figured out the purpose of the 4 stones which someone buried next to my apple tree.
Thu May 05, 2016 12:29 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 18
 [ 352 posts ] 
Return to Blog of Reason

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests