Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 121

Thread: fine tuning argument

  1. Top | #1
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    United States-Texas
    Posts
    740
    Archived
    2,285
    Total Posts
    3,025
    Rep Power
    52

    fine tuning argument

    I have read about the fine tuning argument and assume all of you are familiar with its contents.

    I have read that the fine tune believers claim that statistically speaking, out of all potential universes, more than likely we would have one where the most advanced particles of matter would be a hydrogen and helium atom, and that these would never be able to merge together to form anything like stars and so forth.

    If this is this case, and theoretically speaking the universe had gone that way purely by chance, what would stop the hydrogen and helium atoms from deciding among themselves that the universe had been fine tuned for them and miraculously made by a god for them? Of course it is silly to think helium and hydrogen atoms could think or talk but I think you get my point.

  2. Top | #2
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    8,590
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    17,630
    Rep Power
    85
    Like Douglas Adams' bit on the puddle?
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    “This is rather as if you 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, 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.”

  3. Top | #3
    Veteran Member braces_for_impact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Clearwater, FL.
    Posts
    3,095
    Archived
    6,637
    Total Posts
    9,732
    Rep Power
    71
    Fine tuning is such a specious argument. Of course, there's a lot of anthropomorphism going on. If there's anything that nature teaches us, is that we are not at the center of things. If the claim is that the universe is fine tuned for our existence, then surely we created clean rooms specifically for these types of bacteria to evolve, because they fit therein so well!

    Instead some claim fine tuning, while they live on a fraction of a dot in a universe that that cannot sustain them directly. Forget the entire universe trying to kill us all, drop a human naked randomly anywhere on the planet and odds are they will die, and die quickly.

  4. Top | #4
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,830
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,330
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by BH View Post
    I have read that the fine tune believers claim that statistically speaking, out of all potential universes, more than likely we would have one where the most advanced particles of matter would be a hydrogen and helium atom, and that these would never be able to merge together to form anything like stars and so forth.
    Well, I don't think THAT is a fine-tuning argument. In that statement, they're saying that the complexity of the universe can only be explained by divine action.
    Not sure where they get these statistics, though. How many universes have they observed coming into being to figure out how often we get a H&H universe and nothing greater, without divine assistance?

  5. Top | #5
    Senior Member Colonel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    17
    No one had a video camera when all this shit came into existence ∴ God did it motherfuckers.

  6. Top | #6
    Elder Contributor Underseer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    11,413
    Archived
    39,172
    Total Posts
    50,585
    Rep Power
    75

  7. Top | #7
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,570
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    8,377
    Rep Power
    61
    To me the flaw in the FTA is it assumes life that did not need the universe to exist created life that did need the universe to exist. To say that "life could not be possible without exactly these parameters" is to deny before the argument starts that whatever life created the universe could not have existed.

    The other horn of that paradox is that life doesn't need exactly (or anywhere near) these parameters to exist, in which case the universe could have been created in any possible configuration desired and life then created to fit said universe.

    Which isn't that far from just admitting that the universe evolved for billions of years before life began to emerge that could survive on at least one tiny dust-speck floating around in it.

    But it's a far cry from the universe being created as a home for the likes of us. Statistically it remains 99.999999999999% lethal to our species.

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,370
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,346
    Rep Power
    65
    The fine tuning argument makes a big unfounded assumption. It assumes that the constants could be different. There is no reason to make such an assumption. Einstein addressed the question from the opposite direction by wondering whether god had any choice.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 04-19-2016 at 02:35 PM.

  9. Top | #9
    Quantum Hot Dog Kharakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    OCCaUSA
    Posts
    4,370
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    7,753
    Rep Power
    76
    Yup. An immortal being with the foresight to fine tune the universe to sustain life, rather than make life interesting. Totally logical.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,197
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    9,081
    Rep Power
    59
    If Linde, Guth et al are correct, the Universe is infinitely immense and infinitely old. By sheer chance then, a rare bubble universe that can sustain life is not a conceptual problem. It may be rare, rare rare, but with all infinity to play with, it will occur.

    Somehow, I am told I must believe in an infinitely old, all powerful being that just exists, that's all. And can instantanously engineer this complex Universe. How? Mumble, mumble, magic.

    I do not fint the fine tuniong argument to be a problem in an infinitely old and infinitely large Universe creating new island Universes all the time.

    The theists might complain that the multi-Universe is highly theoretical and unproven, possibly unprovable. Well the theists have had several thousand years to prove their God exists and have failed. We now get thousands of years to figure this physics thing out.

    God sounds rather unlikely to exist and has other problems such the concept's many internal self-contradictions. With a multi-Universe, the fine tuning problem isn't a problem.
    Cheerful Charlie

Similar Threads

  1. Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles
    By Brian63 in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 890
    Last Post: 03-16-2020, 05:43 PM
  2. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  3. Zero G and I feel fine
    By Malintent in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 07:50 PM
  4. Protect yourself with a gun? Fine, but ...
    By Derec in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-15-2016, 11:29 AM
  5. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 10:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •