Sunday, June 07, 2009

Revisting Fine Tunning.

Photobucket

This is based upon an article by Andre Linde, although the first couple of quotes are by others. Linde is a major pysicist who is an atheist. But he admits the fine turning argument is a problem that science cannot at pesent deal with. At least at the time of the article which was a few years ago, he did say this. This is evidence I used in my previous post on the fine tuning arugment, and it was never addressed by Hemit or Loren.



1) Coincidence of the Universal Constants


Bradley again:

"One of the remarkable discoveries of the past 30 years has been the recognition that small changes in any of the universal constants produce surprisingly dramatic changes in the universe, rendering it unsuitable for life, not just as we know it, but for life of any conceivable type. In excess of 100 examples have been documented in the technical literature and summarized in such books as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986)".

"Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible . . . the necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design," stated John Wheeler, Princeton University professor of physics (Reader's Digest, Sept., 1986). "University of Virginia astronomers R.T. Rood and J.S. Trefil conclude their book Are We Alone? ..by estimating the probability of life existing anywhere in the universe to be one in a billion, and thus conclude the existence of life on planet earth, far from being inevitable, is the result of a remarkable set of coincidences."

"If I were a religious man," Trefil wrote in the concluding chapter, "I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore, special in God's sight." Instead he concludes that life on planet earth is a remarkable accident, unlikely to have been replicated anywhere else in the universe, which his book powerfully argues."


2) Initial Conditions


Bradley:

"Initial condition problems are found in many places in our scenario of the origin of the universe, its development into a suitable home for us, and the origin of life. These initial condition problems have, in fact, grown much worse with the recognition that many critical processes in the origins scenario are nonlinear, and therefore, require particularly precise initial conditions. Trefil and Rood's book cited above mentions some of these problems in detail. I will also discuss, briefly, initial conditions problems having to do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life. In summarizing this section, it is clear that there does appear to be something unique and special about our home in the universe and our existence in it."


Adrei Linde,Scientific American. Oct 97

http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/0398cosmos/0398linde.html
[explaining problems with the BB for which the new inflationary model is propossed. The first problem listed above--that the universe pops into exitence out of nothing]



a) something from nothing



b) Flatness of Universe


"A second trouble spot is the flatness of space. General relativity suggests that space may be very curved, with a typical radius on the order of the Planck length, or 10^-33 centimeter. We see however, that our universe is just about flat on a scale of 10^28 centimeters, the radius of the observable part of the universe. This result of our observation differs from theoretical expectations by more than 60 orders of magnitude."




c) Size of Universe--Plank Density


"A similar discrepancy between theory and observations concerns the size of the universe. Cosmological examinations show that our part of the universe contains at least IO^88 elementary particles. But why is the universe so big? If one takes a universe of a typical initial size given by the Planck length and a typical initial density equal to the Planck density, then, using the standard big bang theory, one can calculate how many elementary particles such a universe might encompass. The answer is rather unexpected: the entire universe should only be large enough to accommodate just one elementary particle or at most 10 of them. it would be unable to house even a single reader of Scientiftc American, who consists of about 10^29 elementary particles. Obviously something is wrong with this theory."




d) Timing of expansion


"The fourth problem deals with the timing of the expansion. In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe synchromize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?




e)Distribution of matter in the universe


"Fifth, there is the question about the distribution of matter in the universe. on the very large scale, matter has spread out with remarkable uniformity. Across more than 10 billion light-years, its distribution departs from perfect homogeneity by less than one part in 10,000..... One of the cornerstones of the standard cosmology was the 'cosmological principle," which asserts that the universe must be homogeneous. This assumption. however, does not help much, because the universe incorporates important deviations from homogeneity, namely. stars, galaxies and other agglomerations of matter. Tence, we must explain why the universe is so uniform on large scales and at the same time suggest some mechanism that produces galaxies."




f) The "Uniqueness Problem"


"Finally, there is what I call the uniqueness problem. AIbert Einstein captured its essence when he said: "What really interests ine is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." Indeed, slight changes in the physical constants of nature could have made the universe unfold in a completeIy, different manner. ..... In some theories, compactilication can occur in billions of different ways. A few years ago it would have seemed rather meaningless to ask why space-time has four dimensions, why the gravitational constant is so small or why the proton is almost 2,000 times heavier than the electron. New developments in elementary particle physics make answering these questions crucial to understanding the construction of our world."


Now Linde is confident that the new inflationary theires will explain all of this, and indeed states that their purpose is to revolve the ambiguity with which cosmologists are forced to cope. The Scalar field is suppossed to explain all of this; but these inflationary models are still on the drawing board. Moreover, he never says where scalar fields come from, what makes them, and indeed never illustrates how they solve the initial problem of where it all came form in the first palce. Finally, it seems that scalar fields would be a design feature that should troulbe Linde as much as the initial problems, since he compares them the circuit breaker of a house which keeps the uiverse from heating up too fast before it can expand. Moreover, they might be argitrary necessiteis (see argument I).

35 comments:

A Hermit said...

All any of this says is that if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. We really have no way of knowing what other elemental combinations may have been possible at the most fundamental level.

We could get into an article-posting contest I suppose, but neither of us are cosmologists or astrophysicists so lets not pretend we're going to resolve those kinds of questions here. There are all kinds of theoretical models out there (including Linde's own Chaotic Inflation Hypothesis) which attempt to answer these questions, and I see no reason to give the God hypothesis any greater credence than any of the possible natural explanations. If a natural universe s unlikely how much more unlikely is a purposeful one?

Also, I still think it's human life which matters here, since cockroaches or microbes or water-bears, all of which can survive in conditions fatal to human beings, don't appear to care about gods at all; they don't appear to be sufficient to satisfy your soteriological drama. Like I pointed out before, it's possible for non-human life to exist in environments which would quickly kill us. For most of the history of life on Earth we weren't around so at this point the question is why things aren't more finely tuned to suit human life.

Finally, the biggest objection to the "fine tuning" argument is that it gets the whole observation backwards; the universe isn't the way it is because it has to be that way to support life; it's the other way around. Life has to be the way it is because its development is constrained by the conditions of the universe. It's this fundamental objection which you haven't answered.

J.L. Hinman said...

All any of this says is that if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. We really have no way of knowing what other elemental combinations may have been possible at the most fundamental level.


Hermi baby he specifically it's a problem for his atheism and he ties to solve it, but he did not.He admits it's a problem. He says the fine tuning arguemnt is a worry.

We could get into an article-posting contest I suppose, but neither of us are cosmologists or astrophysicists

that hasn't stopped you from pontificating so far! You don't care what the expert says, even when he shared your bias.



so lets not pretend we're going to resolve those kinds of questions here.

you mean, without evidence and no quoting of specialists so you wont be embarrassed? no sorry. debate is evidence driven.



There are all kinds of theoretical models out there (including Linde's own Chaotic Inflation Hypothesis) which attempt to answer these questions, and I see no reason to give the God hypothesis any greater credence than any of the possible natural explanations. If a natural universe s unlikely how much more unlikely is a purposeful one?

Linde did he wouldn't be dealing with it. So do most physicists.

Also, I still think it's human life which matters here, since cockroaches or microbes or water-bears, all of which can survive in conditions fatal to human beings, don't appear to care about gods at all; they don't appear to be sufficient to satisfy your soteriological drama.


I can't believe this? you are clutching straws shamelessly. I you know your beaten! you know you haven't a leg to stand on.



Like I pointed out before, it's possible for non-human life to exist in environments which would quickly kill us. For most of the history of life on Earth we weren't around so at this point the question is why things aren't more finely tuned to suit human life.


you are glossing over the facts. The facts say a life bearing universe is extremely improbable. the odds were vastly against it,and that always indicates a fixed game.

if you beat the odds you are rewal lucky, if you beat super impossible odds with gobs of 0's the game is fixed. how many royal flushes before you would say the guy is cheating? Hmmm? 3? 5? 10? How about one hundred billion? some of the odds we are talking about are that high.




Finally, the biggest objection to the "fine tuning" argument is that it gets the whole observation backwards; the universe isn't the way it is because it has to be that way to support life; it's the other way around. Life has to be the way it is because its development is constrained by the conditions of the universe. It's this fundamental objection which you haven't answered.


you are still trying desperately to ignore the odds. Of course life as it is becasue it adapted. But the odds of it being able to adapt over overwhelmingly negative since there are thousands of fine tuning target levels taht each one vastly against it.

Kristen said...

Hermit said:

Also, I still think it's human life which matters here, since cockroaches or microbes or water-bears, all of which can survive in conditions fatal to human beings, don't appear to care about gods at all; they don't appear to be sufficient to satisfy your soteriological drama. Like I pointed out before, it's possible for non-human life to exist in environments which would quickly kill us. For most of the history of life on Earth we weren't around so at this point the question is why things aren't more finely tuned to suit human life.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here, but it isn't against Christian theism, anyway. What does it refute, that other kinds of life can live in environments that humans can't? As if all God wanted to create was humans, and the rest was an accident? Or that it is somehow God's idea that every living creature be part of the soteriological drama? You're refuting arguments that have never even been made.

Anyway, Metacrock's idea is that the Ground of Being causes other things to Be. More diversity in the beings strengthens that argument; it doesn't weaken it.

A Hermit said...

"Hermi baby he specifically it's a problem for his atheism and he ties to solve it, but he did not.He admits it's a problem. He says the fine tuning arguemnt is a worry."

Joey, sweetie, honeypie.... I don't see Linde saying he's "worried" about anything. He sees an unanswered questioned and proposes a number of possible solutions. The fact that the answers aren't definitive isn't a problem, since "God did it" isn't exactly a definitive solution either...

"that hasn't stopped you from pontificating so far! You don't care what the expert says, even when he shared your bias."

I'm just not interested in a game of dueling links and cut and pastes. I don't think that's worth my time.

'if you beat the odds you are rewal lucky, if you beat super impossible odds with gobs of 0's the game is fixed. how many royal flushes before you would say the guy is cheating? Hmmm? 3? 5? 10? How about one hundred billion? some of the odds we are talking about are that high."

One win against long odds doesn't mean the game is fixed...the fact that there are odds at all means it isn't impossible, and we don;t really know the odds of other possible life bearing universes...in fact we don't really know the odds of this Universe all that well. Not knowing the preceding conditions kind of limits our ability to make that calculation.

"you are still trying desperately to ignore the odds."

No I'm not, but you're still mis-stating the problem. One "win" doe snot prove the "fix is in", especially when your definition of a win is entirely subjective.

Loren said...

The flatness problem can be solved by the inflation hypothesis -- that the Universe had gotten stuck in a phase of exponential expansion which had a timescale of about 10^(-36) seconds.

It took about 60 e-foldings to expand to a size suitable for the observable Universe, and it likely continued for even longer, making a much bigger Universe than we can possibly observe.

During this inflationary period, quantum fluctuations would get frozen into the Universe as each fluctuation got stretched beyond the event-horizon size. These fluctuations eventually became noticeable in the Cosmic Microwave Background, and galaxies formed around them.

The fluctuation spectrum predicted by the more straightforward inflation models agrees with what's been observed, like with the WMAP spacecraft.

On other fine-tuning subjects, I've found a paper on A Universe Without Weak Interactions Its authors find that there will still be lots of interesting stuff going on in it, like nucleosynthesis and stars and supernovae and so forth.

A Hermit said...

"I'm not sure what you're arguing against here, but it isn't against Christian theism, anyway.

I'm arguing against the idea that alleged fine-tuning implies design

"What does it refute, that other kinds of life can live in environments that humans can't?"

It refutes the idea that the "tuning" is as "fine" as implied by the argument.

"Anyway, Metacrock's idea is that the Ground of Being causes other things to Be. More diversity in the beings strengthens that argument; it doesn't weaken it.
More diversity requires less fine tuning...the two arguments seem to be at odds with one another.

J.L. Hinman said...

flat universe is not solved by inflation. Now that's a good guess since the guy I quote invented inflation. but he already did it before they knew about the flat univers. so that was not an answer. he tried to used skelar fields as an answer he filed there too.

J.L. Hinman said...

MetaI'm not sure what you're arguing against here, but it isn't against Christian theism, anyway.

HermiI'm arguing against the idea that alleged fine-tuning implies design


Not design per se but purpose

"What does it refute, that other kinds of life can live in environments that humans can't?"

It refutes the idea that the "tuning" is as "fine" as implied by the argument.

if the plank density was off by less than one degree the universe could have wound up 12 feet wide. that's pretty finely tuned. there are thousands of target levels. that' the point, the odds with so many.

"Anyway, Metacrock's idea is that the Ground of Being causes other things to Be. More diversity in the beings strengthens that argument; it doesn't weaken it.
More diversity requires less fine tuning...the two arguments seem to be at odds with one another.

Even "less" fine tuning does not change the odds significantly. Look at the things Linde pointed out. There is no way to account for them. it's not only that they are finely tuned but there are thousands of them so the odds are so overwhelming.

that's what you have to come to terms with

A Hermit said...

"if the plank density was off by less than one degree the universe could have wound up 12 feet wide. that's pretty finely tuned. there are thousands of target levels. that' the point, the odds with so many."

This kind of assertion is true only if all other variables are unchanged; it's an artificially narrow way of looking at the problem.There's no reason to think that if the electromagnetic force, for example, were weaker that this might not be compensated for by stronger gravity.

"that's what you have to come to terms with"

There's nothing to come to terms with; things could have been different. So what? If I'm lucky enough to be dealt a straight flush that doesn't mean the dealer did it purposefully...

Kristen said...

Hermit, all the things in the blog post we are discussing are about carbon-based life, not just human life. Why do you keep insisting we are talking about human life? The arguments being made are that any life as we know it (and we don't know if there can be any other kind, no matter what science fiction writers tell stories about), exists as a series of remarkable coincidences in the formation of our Universe. I still do not understand why you insist that we have to be talking about human life.

A Hermit said...

"Hermit, all the things in the blog post we are discussing are about carbon-based life, not just human life. Why do you keep insisting we are talking about human life? The arguments being made are that any life as we know it (and we don't know if there can be any other kind, no matter what science fiction writers tell stories about), exists as a series of remarkable coincidences in the formation of our Universe. I still do not understand why you insist that we have to be talking about human life."

I'm not; I'm suggesting that it's a bit of a dodge to broaden the argument beyond human life. Dust mites don't pray and Christians don't believe that Christ was crucified to save the souls of sea slugs. Salvation is offered to human beings, so if God fine tuned the universe to produce life it's human life that must be the goal of that fine tuning.

J.L. Hinman said...

'm not; I'm suggesting that it's a bit of a dodge to broaden the argument beyond human life.

Life could have been anything. there's nothing necessary about the nature of human life. The dominate species could have been dinosaurs. So we could have a race of lizard men on earth who evolved from dinosaurs and mamals would still be furry mice like creatures.

the FT arguemnt always covered all life from it's first presentation.



Dust mites don't pray and Christians don't believe that Christ was crucified to save the souls of sea slugs. Salvation is offered to human beings, so if God fine tuned the universe to produce life it's human life that must be the goal of that fine tuning.


that's not part of the arugment.

A Hermit said...

"The dominate species could have been dinosaurs."

In fact the dominant species on Earth IS the dinosaur; they were around for a hundred million years, their descendants are still around in the form of birds and reptiles.

Or maybe we should say it's spiders that are the dominant lifeform; they've been around even longer than dinosaurs...

We're Johnny come lately on the biological stage; this is another example of your anthropomorphizing the issue, and this is precisely why I think it's a bit of a dodge to say the fine tuning argument isn't about human life. You're assuming here that we, or another human-like sentient species, is the goal of evolution. But there's really no reason to think it is.

You need it to be us, though, to tie this in to your other arguments like the Soteriological Drama. Spiders and Brachiosaurs don't require such a drama...

J.L. Hinman said...

In fact the dominant species on Earth IS the dinosaur; they were around for a hundred million years, their descendants are still around in the form of birds and reptiles.

Or maybe we should say it's spiders that are the dominant lifeform; they've been around even longer than dinosaurs...

We're Johnny come lately on the biological stage; this is another example of your anthropomorphizing the issue, and this is precisely why I think it's a bit of a dodge to say the fine tuning argument isn't about human life. You're assuming here that we, or another human-like sentient species, is the goal of evolution. But there's really no reason to think it is.

the distinction between is and were is semantic.

You need it to be us, though, to tie this in to your other arguments like the Soteriological Drama. Spiders and Brachiosaurs don't require such a drama...


that is a straw man. The argument doesn't say that. It dos not say only humans count as the product of fine tuning. All ife is extremely improbable.

A Hermit said...

"that is a straw man. The argument doesn't say that."

But your other arguments do; I'm trying to make the connection between alleged fine tuning and the kind of God you propose elsewhere.

And why else make the argument that something manlike could have evolved from the dinosaurs as the "dominant species" on Earth? Why does the dominant species have to be manlike? Why suppose that any species need be viewed as "dominant?"

Kristen said...

Hermit, Jesus said God clothes the flowers of the field, and feeds the sparrows. Sure, God would want self-aware beings too-- but as I said, your argument that it's not fine-tuned enough, makes no sense to me as a Christian theist. Christian doctrine is that God made all the creatures because God wanted to-- everything doesn't ultimately revolve around humans. Why shouldn't God make it so all kinds of other creature can live where humans can't? In what way is that an argument against God being behind all this?

A Hermit said...

"Christian doctrine is that God made all the creatures because God wanted to-- everything doesn't ultimately revolve around humans."

It's Joe who says that humanity is the "dominant species" not me.

And the question is why a God who wanted to work out some sort of "soteriological drama" with humanity would create a universe which is so hostile to human life. (Cue appeals to ineffable plan...;-)...)

J.L. Hinman said...

And the question is why a God who wanted to work out some sort of "soteriological drama" with humanity would create a universe which is so hostile to human life. (Cue appeals to ineffable plan...;-)...)

who says he did? that's your assumption becasue you think about God like he's a big man. God did not have to plan humanity per se to understand that such a concept as salvation would be necessary or to value the notion of free moral agents willingly accepting the good.


there are not things God had to plan out. Since we don't know the mind of God we can only guess about he thought about it. But I can imagine God as consciousness principle not having ratiocinate but just understanding this is what creation will entail and not specific to any one species.

A Hermit said...

"...God did not have to plan humanity per se to understand that such a concept as salvation would be necessary or to value the notion of free moral agents willingly accepting the good. "

Hey, you're the one calling humanity the "dominant" life form...don't blame me for taking your comments at face value...;-)

"there are not things God had to plan out. Since we don't know the mind of God we can only guess about he thought about it."

Then how can you infer anything about His alleged purpose from the shape of the Universe? If you can't know what the purpose was how can then make an argument that says the Universe is designed to fit that purpose?

J.L. Hinman said...

Me...God did not have to plan humanity per se to understand that such a concept as salvation would be necessary or to value the notion of free moral agents willingly accepting the good. "

HermiHey, you're the one calling humanity the "dominant" life form...don't blame me for taking your comments at face value...;-)


On earth not for the whole universe. There doesn't have to be any preselected group that becomes dominate that can be what evolution is for.

Me"there are not things God had to plan out. Since we don't know the mind of God we can only guess about he thought about it."

HermiThen how can you infer anything about His alleged purpose from the shape of the Universe? If you can't know what the purpose was how can then make an argument that says the Universe is designed to fit that purpose?


because God communicated with us. We know his intentions because he told us. We don't know the ultimate things how he thinks why he does things, but we know what he told us.

we know that love is the basis of everything. That is purposeful. Love is purposeful. We know that it all boils down to love. That's not hard discover.

and we have Jesus as the role model to show the character of God.

A Hermit said...

"because God communicated with us. We know his intentions because he told us. We don't know the ultimate things how he thinks why he does things, but we know what he told us."

But you can't infer that purpose from the Universe; the whole point of the "fine tuning" argument is that the conditions of the Universe tell us something about God. Now you're telling me we have to first know something about God before we can infer anything from those Universal conditions. Isn't this getting close to begging the question?

Kristen said...

Hermit said:

And the question is why a God who wanted to work out some sort of "soteriological drama" with humanity would create a universe which is so hostile to human life.

Umm... because God wanted to work out some sort of soteriological drama with humans.

Hence-- life is difficult but not impossible.

A Hermit said...

"Umm... because God wanted to work out some sort of soteriological drama with humans.

Hence-- life is difficult but not impossible."


So now you're arguing that the fact that the Universe is not as finely-tuned as could be is evidence of god's purpose and design?

This discussion is beginning to make me dizzy...;-)

Kristen said...

I honestly don't know what you want, Hermit.

Life exists.

By all odds, life shouldn't exist.

But it does.

That seems enough to me. As I've said over and over-- the degree of fine-tuning, as you are arguing it, makes no sense to me.

If you are asking whether the universe looks sort of like I would expect it to look if it had been designed to support life, and also to support a "soteriological drama," I would definitely say, "yes." But you seem to have entirely different expectations-- you want the universe for some reason to support only intelligent, self-aware life, and to support that kind of life in every possible corner of the universe-- and only then will you believe there's any design to it.

And I don't understand why it would have to look like that, and only like that, to have been designed.

A Hermit said...

"you seem to have entirely different expectations-- you want the universe for some reason to support only intelligent, self-aware life, and to support that kind of life in every possible corner of the universe-- and only then will you believe there's any design to it.
I think the world looks just like it would if it were the product of undirected natural forces.

"And I don't understand why it would have to look like that, and only like that, to have been designed."

My work requires me to do a certain amount of designing; anyone who does design work of any kind will tell you that the hallmark of good design is simplicity; you don't make things more complicated than they need to be.

The chaotic complexity of the universe tells me, as a designer, that it is either not the product of design, or it is poorly designed. also finding your arguments a bit contradictory; on the one hand you tell me that the fine tuning of the universe to produce life indicates purpose, and then in the next comment you tell me that being less fine tuned than it needs to be implies that it is designed to make life difficult.

It begins to sound like a "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of proposition...if "fine tuning" applies it proves your point, if "fine tuning" doesn't apply it still proves your point. Th ewhole thing is going in circles.

Kristen said...

I'm afraid your arguments sound just as circular to me as mine to do you, Hermit. Probably nowhere to go from here...

But -- how do you know the universe isn't exactly as simple (or as complicated) as it needs to be?

It's like I've heard Joe say elsewhere with these kind of arguments-- since we have nothing to compare the universe with, these arguments are ultimately inconclusive. But-- the universe we've got sure seems to be an amazingly unlikely concatenation of circumstances. :)

A Hermit said...

"But -- how do you know the universe isn't exactly as simple (or as complicated) as it needs to be?"

I think the universe just is as it is; it doesn't "need to be" anything.

That's the difference here; you and Joe are assuming purpose, I'm not. The actual parameters of the Universe themselves don't imply purpose.

Kristen said...

Hermit, I was only referring to what you yourself said:

My work requires me to do a certain amount of designing; anyone who does design work of any kind will tell you that the hallmark of good design is simplicity; you don't make things more complicated than they need to be.

The chaotic complexity of the universe tells me, as a designer, that it is either not the product of design, or it is poorly designed.


I am questioning your view that the universe is "more complicated than it needs to be" if it were designed.

You were the one who said the universe was too complicated to have purpose-- I questioned if you had sufficient ground to be sure of that. You can't then claim you never made the point in the first place.

A Hermit said...

"I am questioning your view that the universe is "more complicated than it needs to be" if it were designed."

It's certainly more complicated than it needs to be to produce life; especially if one assumes (as you and Joe do, even if you won't admit it) that human life, or at least life in the form of some sentient moral actor, is the purpose of the Universe;s existence.

Kristen said...

Aaagh. I give up. I'm tired of being told what my assumptions are, and having assertions repeated at me as if repeating them somehow proves them.

This conversation isn't worth the trouble.

J.L. Hinman said...

all he's done so far is just muddle the issues. He hasn't said anything that actually damage the argument.

J.L. Hinman said...

It's certainly more complicated than it needs to be to produce life;


you don't have evidence to prove it, and it counter intuitive because by the theory of evolution if has to have what it needs to produce life. You do not have another universe to compare it to to decide that. How do you know what is complex "enough?"

that really is in the same vein as saying "it looks like a designed/undesigned universe." The target levels give us a real measurement because the target level itself is something to compare..




especially if one assumes (as you and Joe do, even if you won't admit it) that human life, or at least life in the form of some sentient moral actor, is the purpose of the Universe;s existence.

I have said explicitly it doesn't have to be human life that came to be, it could be multiple forms. WE don't know what's out there.

these are very different things. saying "some form of actor" is a totally different thing than say 'human life.'

yes some from moral agent is the purpose of creation. you can't disprove that and it makes perfect sense, but I didn't say it has to be human life.

A Hermit said...

"yes some from moral agent is the purpose of creation. you can't disprove that and it makes perfect sense, but I didn't say it has to be human life."

See Kristen, I was right about that assumption...;-)

And since human beings are the only moral actors we know of it follows that, if the Universe was fine tuned for moral actors it was therefore fine tuned for us...

Except most of the Universe is hostile to human life, so that seems to undermine the "fine tuning" idea.

You could also argue that some other form of sentient, moral actor may have resulted, but again that undermines the fine tuning idea since a Universe which allows for a variety of outcomes can't really be said to be finely tuned.

J.L. Hinman said...

Me:yes some from moral agent is the purpose of creation. you can't disprove that and it makes perfect sense, but I didn't say it has to be human life."

HermitSee Kristen, I was right about that assumption...;-)


Nothing wrong with that assumptions.It's born out by the facts.

And since human beings are the only moral actors we know of it follows that, if the Universe was fine tuned for moral actors it was therefore fine tuned for us...


NO that does not follow. That's an post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy.

It's not necessary to assume that just because you argue fine tuning.




Except most of the Universe is hostile to human life, so that seems to undermine the "fine tuning" idea.


that makes human life less probable and that bears out the argument. thanks.


You could also argue that some other form of sentient, moral actor may have resulted, but again that undermines the fine tuning idea since a Universe which allows for a variety of outcomes can't really be said to be finely tuned.


sometimes it seems like you don't even know what this is about

(1) you just contradicted yourself, because first you say FT is assuming humanity is pre determined, then when it turns out it's not not having it be predetermined is also a strike against it. so it's a strike against it either way that's just a fallacious double find. damned if do damned if we don't.

your position here is inconsistant.

the fact other kinds of actors could have resulted is not strike agaisnt fine tunning because any form of corban based like that we can image is totally imporobable and the differences in probablitiy are not worth worrying about. For example mayb there could have been lizard people evovling form dinosours and maybe they would be billion times more likely.

but the fine tuning argument is dealing so many 0's that odds of a billion to one are not significant.

Kristen said...

I have no problem with "some form of moral agent" as ONE of the purposes. I do not assume that God could only have one purpose.

Maybe God likes little fuzzy animals, like I do. Maybe God also likes microscopic creatures that can only live in ice. Maybe God gets a kick out of creating all sorts of things-- maybe God's just funny that way.

It's still, as far as I can see, very unlikely that there's life at all. Fine-tuning enough so there will be life-- that's fine-tuning, too. Sorry it doesn't meet your standards, Hermit, but I have no problem with the idea that God just isn't as picky as you are. ;)