I never found the 'fine tuning' argument all that compelling. It basically states that if the laws of physics were different, things would be different. If the laws of physics were different in such a way that human life couldn't exist—obviously it wouldn't—but it's not. It seems to me that those with poor arguments create fantasies, then structure arguments around those fantasies to avoid reality. Even though there is no evidence the universe is intelligently designed in any way, let's say for the sake of argument that some came about. How could this intelligent design even be linked to a god? Proof that God did something cannot be found unless the actual being in question is found to exist first, then we can assess what this being did or did not do.
Anyways, Mr. Hitchens is right, that is probably the best argument going for them at the movement. I hope he is doing well in his battle with cancer (haven't heard an update in a while).
I am not a theist, but the fine-tuning argument is anything but banal. It has nothing to do with cause and effect (like, for example, the reason humans like green). I wouldn't be so sure it is _the best_ argument for a God atm. The origin of life is also very puzzling. But, please do the atheistic cause a favor and refrain from trivializing the fine tuning argument. It only shows that it is not properly understood.
ReplyDelete"please do the atheistic cause a favor and refrain from trivializing the fine tuning argument. It only shows that it is not properly understood."
ReplyDeleteIt is properly understood on my end. The universe is the way it is; if it were different, then it would not be as it is, but it's not. It's like a puddle of water wondering why the hole in the ground is perfectly shaped for it. It's complete nonsense, of course the universe exists in a way to perfectly support human-life (it's really the other way around), because it does. The fine-tuning argument is nonsense and does nothing to argue for the existence of an intelligent designer. Are you claiming that intelligent design must be responsible for life to exist in a place that is able to support it? You probably think it is amazing we weren't born on the sun. Common man, pull your head out of your ass.
Ignorance does not lead a person to the truth. If a person doesn't know what something is, they cannot claim (with any intellectual honesty) that it must have been caused by anything (how can they?). No evidence of an intelligent designer exists, and no evidence that the universe was intelligently designed exists. A person that tries to argue for intelligent design is attempting to connect ignorance with fantasy and call it an explanation.
Hello again. I am sorry I haven't replyed earlier to your answer.
ReplyDeleteThe fine-tuning problem has been discussed thoroughly in the scientific community and although it is extremely complex in its detail, I think that one of its hidden beauties is that scientifically uneducated people can value the intellectual challenges that arise from the moment you begin to understand it. I am sure you can agree with me that physicists and cosmologists like Hawking, Penrose and Paul Davies are not people with poor arguments that create fantasies? In fact broad agreement exist among them that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life. Mind you that we are talking about self-confessed atheists and agnostics here, not crazy creationists. In fact, the only people that seem to stumble upon the fine-tuning argument and treat it like a homeless person are “atheists with a cause”, e.g. Hitchens, Victor Stenger, Dawkins. ALAS, they do the cause much harm because they come of as specious, influenced and – frankly – quite outmoded. When you stop asking the question “why?” you have cheapened yourself to the mud you come from.
I hope the above should make it clear that you don’t have to be a proponent of ID in order to observe that there is a naturalistic explanation problem stemming from the fact that the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant remains largely unsolved. Something is missing.
Now, to your illustration: The puddle of water in the hole. By choosing this image, you are in fact providing evidence for my original claim that you are confusing the fine-tuning argument with one of cause and effect, which it is not, because it only deals with why our Universe developed the way it did - not why life developed the way it did. You may regret having used this image and want to correct yourself, but if not I think this is a good opportunity to at least educate yourself on the subject before posting about it again.
I am not one of those that are amazed we are not born on the Sun (by the way, who are those people since you mention them?), but even if I did it would have no bearing on the fine-tuning disagreement whatsoever (did I say disagreement? There IS no disagreement – only between those that don’t understand how it works). I could reverse the table on you however; do YOU think that carbon-based life is the only possible life-form? Be careful what you answer, you could end up giving support for the fine-tuning argument even if you are most likely unaware of it yourself.
I am really tired of atheist preachers and faux-scientists misinterpreting evidence, confusing facts and misrepresenting the rest of us who would like to treat this and other subjects in a serious way. You do just as much harm to the atheistic cause as I imagine the ID people do to the theistic cause.
- Sebastian
The universe is very very complex, and we have evolved within it. Obviously if factors were different, then it would suck for us, but we are built to live in this universe, this universe was not made for us. To believe such a thing is to believe in creationism. The universe isn't fine-tuned for us, we are fine-tuned for it. The geocentric nonsense is a little old :)
ReplyDeleteAlso, we are unable to know all of the ways life can come about in a universe, we cannot say that life can't exist if factors were different (just our type of life). It is like claiming that a fish can't live in a desert, so a desert must not be able to support life. Fish are not evolved to live in deserts, they are evolved to live in water. We are evolved to live on this planet, in this universe. Obviously we cannot be a fish out of water (i.e. if things were "different"). It is all speculation to claim that things "could" be different.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if the laws of physics can vary amongst universes (pure speculation that others exist, but it would explain the 'fine tuning'), then obviously those with laws that lead to a universe not being stable will die out quickly. A universe can be looked at as an organism-like thing. Like a form of life, a universe that is not viable will not exist for very long.
ReplyDeleteOur universe has the right conditions to exist, because it does, and it has the right conditions to support life, because it does. Perhaps, like biological life, many universes fizzle out out (survival of the fittest). Perhaps laws of physics are similar to DNA in the way that they perpetuate viability. But what do I know, right? I'm just some idiot/embarrassment of an atheist :P
Maybe it was all done by God with his all-powerful magic!