An argument against "fine turning" of the universe

[smiley]

Something I've come across reading some atheist website:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments ... ning.xhtml

What do you think?

Note: this thread isn't an attempt to disprove the existence of God. I merely want to see the opinions of people here, since I'm sure this isn't the first evolutionist who used that approach.

[Enginseer]

Interesting fact, while the creation of the Earth is not impossible it is implausible.

There is a low probability that the Earth should exist, many people use this as an argument for the existence of God(s). Yet one only has to look out into space to see this isn't the only answer.

Yes, the chance of Earth forming is unlikely and that's EXACTLY why there isn't thousands of other Earth like planets all around us. Where the only Earth like planet for hundreds of light years in all directions.

People who do not fully perceive evolution think of life starting from bacteria and going straight to humans in a nice line. What they don't notice is all the species that died off and where never heard of again. They don't hear of the species that never even came to be, due to the environment not permitting it.

"If the composition of the atmosphere where off by just a few percentile, Life would not exist" I saw this statement on the front page of this site and it was written by somebody who has not yet learnt what evolution is.

If the environment was different life would have evolved differently, this has already been observed once back when the atmosphere was mostly CO2 before the cooling of the oceans which eventually absorbed most of it. Many life form died out, some survived and adapted to our current composition.



The "Fine Tuning" argument is thought to be a strong one for Christianity so I don't know how this thread will go down...

[hatsoff]

In my judgment, the strongest arguments against fine-tuning take into account specific formulations. Generalized arguments such as the one in the link in the OP are not nearly as powerful, I don't think.

For example, consider Robin Collins' formulation from The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009). It depends on what he calls the restricted principle of indifference, which is a seemingly ad-hoc axiom he invented to make his basic argument work. The best way to deal with his argument, then, is to point out the dubiousness of that "principle." Indeed, I once sketched out a demonstration that it leads to logical contradictions and therefore cannot possibly be true. But Collins' is the only formulation which uses the restricted PoI, and so a criticism thereof will not carry over to other fine-tuning arguments.

These other fine-tuning arguments have different, unique problems. I prefer to take them one at a time, and address those flaws with specificity.

[Enginseer]

In my judgment, the strongest arguments against fine-tuning take into account specific formulations. Generalized arguments such as the one in the link in the OP are not nearly as powerful, I don't think.

For example, consider Robin Collins' formulation from The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009). It depends on what he calls the restricted principle of indifference, which is a seemingly ad-hoc axiom he invented to make his basic argument work. The best way to deal with his argument, then, is to point out the dubiousness of that "principle." Indeed, I once sketched out a demonstration that it leads to logical contradictions and therefore cannot possibly be true. But Collins' is the only formulation which uses the restricted PoI, and so a criticism thereof will not carry over to other fine-tuning arguments.

These other fine-tuning arguments have different, unique problems. I prefer to take them one at a time, and address those flaws with specificity.

You say it's a seemingly ad-hoc axiom. People do not share the same thoughts and have different opinions of what is logical. Can you claim that others agree with your logic in this particular context?

Also, is there a link available to this formulation?

[jlay]

Where to start?

Interesting fact, while the creation of the Earth is not impossible it is implausible.

What about the universe originating from nothing? Is that plausible.

There is a low probability that the Earth should exist, many people use this as an argument for the existence of God(s). Yet one only has to look out into space to see this isn't the only answer.

Yes, the chance of Earth forming is unlikely and that's EXACTLY why there isn't thousands of other Earth like planets all around us. Where the only Earth like planet for hundreds of light years in all directions.

You know of another????

People who do not fully perceive evolution think of life starting from bacteria and going straight to humans in a nice line. What they don't notice is all the species that died off and where never heard of again. They don't hear of the species that never even came to be, due to the environment not permitting it.

Are you seriously arguing that a proof of evolution are creatures that never were in the 1st place? Talk about a straw man. That has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard in a while.

"If the composition of the atmosphere where off by just a few percentile, Life would not exist" I saw this statement on the front page of this site and it was written by somebody who has not yet learnt what evolution is.

Really? they aint learnt it yet, huh? That is just a condescending statement. Otherwise, explain to us simple folk, what evolution is.

If the environment was different life would have evolved differently, this has already been observed once back when the atmosphere was mostly CO2 before the cooling of the oceans which eventually absorbed most of it. Many life form died out, some survived and adapted to our current composition.

Observed? By who? Do you have pictures? Maybe you need to get a little edumacation yourself, and learn what the word, 'observe,' means. Do you understand observational science?

The "Fine Tuning" argument is thought to be a strong one for Christianity so I don't know how this thread will go down...

Not well for you, unless you come stronger than this.

[Kurieuo]

Something I've come across reading some atheist website:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments ... ning.xhtml

What do you think?

Note: this thread isn't an attempt to disprove the existence of God. I merely want to see the opinions of people here, since I'm sure this isn't the first evolutionist who used that approach.

It doesn't really take away the potency of the fine tuning argument.

For example, to use an obvious illustration, if someone pointed to Mt Rushmore and exclaimed, "What if there are many?"... I certainly see an excuse to not believe is was designed, but where is the potency for believing it was in fact not designed.

Or to take the strawman argument that is set up against Creationist, "life as we know it could not exist" which sets up his response "there's the rub: life as we know it"... this doesn't explain the possibilities for life to occur in some other form. Carbon-based life provides the greatest amount of building blocks for life. Can he put forward probabilities for silicon-based life, or kind of life?

The lack of potency in his argument for me can be summed up with one question: "Where is the evidence for his position?" (the many... possibility for any life to arise on their own, let alone other forms...). It seems to me he assumes his position is correct and creationists are the only ones with a burden of proof.

[Enginseer]

Where to start?

Interesting fact, while the creation of the Earth is not impossible it is implausible.

What about the universe originating from nothing? Is that plausible.

First of all, scientists do not claim the universe came from nothing. We simply do not know, we have theories, but no proof as of yet.

There is a low probability that the Earth should exist, many people use this as an argument for the existence of God(s). Yet one only has to look out into space to see this isn't the only answer.

Yes, the chance of Earth forming is unlikely and that's EXACTLY why there isn't thousands of other Earth like planets all around us. Where the only Earth like planet for hundreds of light years in all directions.

You know of another????

F*cking owned

People who do not fully perceive evolution think of life starting from bacteria and going straight to humans in a nice line. What they don't notice is all the species that died off and where never heard of again. They don't hear of the species that never even came to be, due to the environment not permitting it.

Are you seriously arguing that a proof of evolution are creatures that never were in the 1st place? Talk about a straw man. That has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard in a while.

You my friend need to learn what probability is. Just because something has a probability of occurring doesn't mean it will. You could roll a dice ten trillion times and never land on a six, highly unlikely yet possible. Human's could have turned out differently in millions of ways, it just so happens we are the result.

"If the composition of the atmosphere where off by just a few percentile, Life would not exist" I saw this statement on the front page of this site and it was written by somebody who has not yet learnt what evolution is.

Really? they aint learnt it yet, huh? That is just a condescending statement. Otherwise, explain to us simple folk, what evolution is.

I can give a simple example: 80% of a planet's life forms need N2 to survive. The atmosphere changes, 80% of life dies. Now 100% of life forms do not need N2 to survive. This process of Evolution is similar on Earth and easy enough for most people to understand.

If the environment was different life would have evolved differently, this has already been observed once back when the atmosphere was mostly CO2 before the cooling of the oceans which eventually absorbed most of it. Many life form died out, some survived and adapted to our current composition.

Observed? By who? Do you have pictures? Maybe you need to get a little edumacation yourself, and learn what the word, 'observe,' means. Do you understand observational science?

Wow, Just because you cannot see something doesn't mean it cannot be observed. Perfect example, radio waves. They cannot be seen, yet their affects can be seen. We can see the affects that an atmospheric change has on life forms. Archeologists find a lot of animals died at the same time and all relied heavily on CO2. They don't say "OMG A GIANT SPACE ALIEN STEPPED ON THEM ALL" they use the evidence to justify their theory.

The "Fine Tuning" argument is thought to be a strong one for Christianity so I don't know how this thread will go down...

Not well for you, unless you come stronger than this.

I was not presented an argument that I couldn't easily rebut to, please try again.

[hatsoff]

You say it's a seemingly ad-hoc axiom. People do not share the same thoughts and have different opinions of what is logical. Can you claim that others agree with your logic in this particular context?

Unfortunately I haven't found any reviews of Collins' work in Blackwell, so I don't have anything to support or oppose my own treatment of his methodology. However, I can tell you that I don't know of a single mathematician who accepts Collins' "restricted" PoI (it's actually an expanded form of the PoI, ironically enough), and that even finite versions of the PoI have a history of controversy and rejection (e.g. Ian Hacking, J.M. Keynes, etc.), mostly in the field of philosophy, not statistics. At least one author, Paul Castell, believes he can salvage the PoI if it applies only to finite samples, along with a few other strict qualifications, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule, and in any case it is no help to Collins, who requires a PoI suitable for infinite sample spaces.

Also, is there a link available to this formulation?

Not complete, no, but you can preview it here.