tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post7811515749552143364..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Revisting Fine Tunning.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-9633858013840999092009-06-17T20:20:01.477-07:002009-06-17T20:20:01.477-07:00I have no problem with "some form of moral ag...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. ;)Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48479748351795131352009-06-17T13:07:22.352-07:002009-06-17T13:07:22.352-07:00Me:yes some from moral agent is the purpose of cre...<b>Me:</b>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."<br /><br /><b>Hermit</b>See Kristen, I was right about that assumption...;-)<br /><br /><br /><b>Nothing wrong with that assumptions.It's born out by the facts.</b><br /><br />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...<br /><br /><br /><b>NO that does not follow. That's an post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy.<br /><br />It's not necessary to assume that just because you argue fine tuning.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Except most of the Universe is hostile to human life, so that seems to undermine the "fine tuning" idea.<br /><br /><br /><b>that makes human life less probable and that bears out the argument. thanks.</b><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><b>sometimes it seems like you don't even know what this is about<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />your position here is inconsistant.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />but the fine tuning argument is dealing so many 0's that odds of a billion to one are not significant.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59410338051630914692009-06-17T12:37:48.906-07:002009-06-17T12:37:48.906-07:00"yes some from moral agent is the purpose of ...<i>"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."</i><br /><br />See Kristen, I was right about that assumption...;-)<br /><br />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...<br /><br />Except most of the Universe is hostile to human life, so that seems to undermine the "fine tuning" idea.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4149449331385740942009-06-17T05:23:29.479-07:002009-06-17T05:23:29.479-07:00It's certainly more complicated than it needs ...It's certainly more complicated than it needs to be to produce life; <br /><br /><br /><b>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?"<br /><br />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..</b><br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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.<br /><br />these are very different things. saying "some form of actor" is a totally different thing than say 'human life.'<br /><br />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.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79954083440536535382009-06-17T05:19:35.611-07:002009-06-17T05:19:35.611-07:00all he's done so far is just muddle the issues...all he's done so far is just muddle the issues. He hasn't said anything that actually damage the argument.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-71944274105514182852009-06-16T23:20:29.758-07:002009-06-16T23:20:29.758-07:00Aaagh. I give up. I'm tired of being told wh...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. <br /><br />This conversation isn't worth the trouble.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66067465206521538462009-06-16T12:15:24.635-07:002009-06-16T12:15:24.635-07:00"I am questioning your view that the universe...<i>"I am questioning your view that the universe is "more complicated than it needs to be" if it were designed."</i><br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58619506566692155742009-06-15T23:05:41.273-07:002009-06-15T23:05:41.273-07:00Hermit, I was only referring to what you yourself ...Hermit, I was only referring to what you yourself said:<br /><br /><i>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.<br /><br />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><br /><br />I am questioning your view that the universe is "more complicated than it needs to be" <i>if</i> it were designed. <br /><br />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.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58698674879202401052009-06-15T12:52:29.238-07:002009-06-15T12:52:29.238-07:00"But -- how do you know the universe isn'...<i>"But -- how do you know the universe isn't exactly as simple (or as complicated) as it needs to be?" </i><br /><br />I think the universe just is as it is; it doesn't "need to be" anything.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-33665964552791019022009-06-14T20:00:12.004-07:002009-06-14T20:00:12.004-07:00I'm afraid your arguments sound just as circul...I'm afraid your arguments sound just as circular to me as mine to do you, Hermit. Probably nowhere to go from here...<br /><br />But -- how do you know the universe isn't exactly as simple (or as complicated) as it needs to be? <br /><br />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. :)Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89017614310798426762009-06-14T09:09:28.840-07:002009-06-14T09:09:28.840-07:00"you seem to have entirely different expectat...<i>"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><br />I think the world looks just like it would if it were the product of undirected natural forces.<br /><br /><i>"And I don't understand why it would have to look like that, and only like that, to have been designed."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63305208400528112222009-06-13T23:06:26.465-07:002009-06-13T23:06:26.465-07:00I honestly don't know what you want, Hermit.
...I honestly don't know what you want, Hermit.<br /><br />Life exists. <br /><br />By all odds, life shouldn't exist.<br /><br />But it does.<br /><br />That seems enough to me. As I've said over and over-- the <i>degree</i> of fine-tuning, as you are arguing it, makes no sense to me.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And I don't understand why it would have to look like that, and <i>only</i> like that, to have been designed.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13973320107579717602009-06-13T07:09:16.015-07:002009-06-13T07:09:16.015-07:00"Umm... because God wanted to work out some s...<i>"Umm... because God wanted to work out some sort of soteriological drama with humans.<br /><br />Hence-- life is difficult but not impossible."</i><br /><br />So now you're arguing that the fact that the Universe is <b>not</b> as finely-tuned as could be is evidence of god's purpose and design?<br /><br />This discussion is beginning to make me dizzy...;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12610621814363058422009-06-12T16:54:47.323-07:002009-06-12T16:54:47.323-07:00Hermit said:
And the question is why a God who wa...Hermit said:<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />Umm... because God wanted to work out some sort of soteriological drama with humans. <br /><br />Hence-- life is difficult but not impossible.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-56225678552457659382009-06-12T08:30:46.049-07:002009-06-12T08:30:46.049-07:00"because God communicated with us. We know hi...<i>"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."</i><br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5495411899692182942009-06-11T19:17:06.644-07:002009-06-11T19:17:06.644-07:00Me...God did not have to plan humanity per se to u...<b>Me</b>...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. "<br /><br /><b>Hermi</b>Hey, you're the one calling humanity the "dominant" life form...don't blame me for taking your comments at face value...;-)<br /><br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br /><b>Me</b>"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."<br /><br /><b>Hermi</b>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?<br /><br /><br /><b>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />and we have Jesus as the role model to show the character of God.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89850268474064016582009-06-11T13:49:34.193-07:002009-06-11T13:49:34.193-07:00"...God did not have to plan humanity per se ...<i>"...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. "</i><br /><br />Hey, you're the one calling humanity the "dominant" life form...don't blame me for taking your comments at face value...;-)<br /><br /><i>"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."</i><br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64413294803576776342009-06-11T13:15:02.144-07:002009-06-11T13:15:02.144-07:00And the question is why a God who wanted to work o...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...;-)...)<br /><br /><b>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. <br /><br /><br />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.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27088405144260340462009-06-11T09:54:11.342-07:002009-06-11T09:54:11.342-07:00"Christian doctrine is that God made all the ...<i>"Christian doctrine is that God made all the creatures because God wanted to-- everything doesn't ultimately revolve around humans."</i><br /><br />It's Joe who says that humanity is the "dominant species" not me.<br /><br />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...;-)...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6523758005637361152009-06-10T15:04:40.006-07:002009-06-10T15:04:40.006-07:00Hermit, Jesus said God clothes the flowers of the ...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?Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2426932134463360942009-06-10T09:33:24.897-07:002009-06-10T09:33:24.897-07:00"that is a straw man. The argument doesn'...<i>"that is a straw man. The argument doesn't say that."</i><br /><br />But your other arguments do; I'm trying to make the connection between alleged fine tuning and the kind of God you propose elsewhere.<br /><br />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?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-33079805964257556632009-06-10T09:02:03.753-07:002009-06-10T09:02:03.753-07:00In fact the dominant species on Earth IS the dinos...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.<br /><br />Or maybe we should say it's spiders that are the dominant lifeform; they've been around even longer than dinosaurs...<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>the distinction between is and were is semantic.</b><br /><br />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...<br /><br /><br /><b>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.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85839638485400406622009-06-10T07:42:58.900-07:002009-06-10T07:42:58.900-07:00"The dominate species could have been dinosau...<i>"The dominate species could have been dinosaurs."</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />Or maybe we should say it's spiders that are the dominant lifeform; they've been around even longer than dinosaurs...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-39951507478134325452009-06-10T06:32:47.953-07:002009-06-10T06:32:47.953-07:00'm not; I'm suggesting that it's a bit...'m not; I'm suggesting that it's a bit of a dodge to broaden the argument beyond human life.<br /><br /><b>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.<br /><br />the FT arguemnt always covered all life from it's first presentation.</b><br /><br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /><br /><b>that's not part of the arugment.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-77889126815696504722009-06-09T19:16:24.512-07:002009-06-09T19:16:24.512-07:00"Hermit, all the things in the blog post we a...<i>"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><br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com