Fine-tuning of the Universe for life

Originally posted by sonhouse
Fine tuned or not, you can't prove it to come from a god.

I never said that Fine Tuning was proof of God. I think it is good evidence for a Fine Tuner. That is an extremely fine Tuner.

Imagine several dials that had to be set in the Big Bang. They had to be exquisitely calibrated in many cases. One dial might vary within one percent. But others could not be varied in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillion of a degree off. That is the constant governing the expansion rate of the universe.

Now Richard Dawkins says proposing God as the Tuner is not adequate because then you need an explanation for God. This is a false objection. To realize the best explanation for something does not mean you have to have an explanation FOR the explanation.

If the demand was made that we always have to have an explanation for the best explanation would lead to an infinite regress and science would be destroyed for scientists would never arrive at the end of the infinite regress.

Arrows made of stone and pottery found at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean could have the best explanation of being made by some ancient people. However, we may have no explanation for WHO these people were. We do not have to have an explanation for the explanation once the best explanation is submitted.

So Dawkins's argument that the explanation of Fine Tuning being God cannot be believed because then "Where did God come from?" is the next question that demands and explanation.

The evidence of a Divine Fine Tuner is still the best explanation for the multiple dials governing the life allowing universe we know. And we do not need to discard that because we have no idea where this Fine Tuner came from.

Of course asking - "Who made God?" is like asking me "Who is the wife of the bachelor?" By definition to many of us God is eternal, uncreated, self existing and the ground of all being.

"But who made God?" is definitionally a nonsensical question. It is like asking "How loud is 2 + 2 ?"

Let me ask you. Is there anything that exists which you find awe is certainly an appropriate response to its existence ?

I think the universe as a whole certainly brings forth a feeling of awe within me. But the realization of the Creator of that universe more so. Even worship, praise and thanksgiving are appropriate responses to the Grand Cause of such a grand matter as the universe.

The other reason Richard Dawkins dismisses God as the end of what Fine Tuning evidence leads to is that the cause would be more complicated then the effect. The cause, he feels, should be more simple than the universe.

However, an transcendent Mind may think complex things but itself be very simple. Though the universe has billions upon billions of parts, the creating transcendent Mind responsible its existence may not be of many "parts" - extraordinarily simple yet endless in power and intelligence - AND goodness, righteousness and love.

Originally posted by sonship
I never said that Fine Tuning was proof of God. I think it is good evidence for a Fine Tuner. That is an extremely fine Tuner.

Imagine several dials that had to be set in the Big Bang. They had to be exquisitely calibrated in many cases. One dial might vary within one percent. But others could not be varied in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillio ...[text shortened]... aordinarily simple yet endless in power and intelligence - AND goodness, righteousness and love.

I am not convinced that there was a "Big Bang" that began the universe. But if God fine-tuned it, I wonder if there were any possibility of do-overs in case He did not get the fine tuning right the first time. That "big Bang" might have caused irreversible damage to the creation process. What do you think?

Originally posted by sonship
Ingenius. I like it.

I sure hope so, you have been touting the Anthropic Principle this whole thread.

In this reasoning it has been said are two claims - one true and one false.
The true claim - If observers who have evolved within a universe observe its constants and quantities, it is highly probable that they will observe them as fine tuned for their existence.
Not just 'highly probable', but a probability of exact 1. ie absolutely certain.

The false claim - It is highly probable that a universe exist which is finely tuned for the evolution of the observers within it.
This is only false if you have no other information. Once you have the first claim being satisfied - ie it is known that observers exist, then the second claim also has a probability of 1.

But why does such a fine tuned universe exist when it is so improbable ?
Anything that exists is either necessarily improbable, (when looked at as a function of all possible existences) or there are an infinity of existences. That is just a fact of existence - and probability theory.
For example, if you throw a die, the result is necessarily improbable.
However, probability changes with information:
If you throw a die, tell me the result was a 6, then the probability that you threw a 6 is now 1.

Originally posted by sonship
But why does such a fine tuned universe exist when it is so improbable ?

Do you believe the universe is necessarily deterministic?
1. If you throw a die, the result is necessarily improbable.
2. If the dies result being improbable requires an explanation, then it must have been caused, ie there is no true randomness and the universe is deterministic.
3. If the universe is deterministic, then either it started with some brute facts (which are necessarily random in nature), or it started from some larger structure for which we simply start the argument over again from 1, or time is infinite.

I have to note here, that you have actually lost the thread of your argument. We have agreed in the past that existence is necessarily improbable. You fully accept that any lottery ticket you pick is necessarily improbable.
Your argument rests on the claim that the lottery ticket you pick is the winning ticket - which is not only improbable but also special. What you need to prove, is not that our universe and its starting conditions are improbable, but that they are special. But you seem to keep conveniently forgetting that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I sure hope so, you have been touting the Anthropic Principle this whole thread.

[b]In this reasoning it has been said are two claims - one true and one false.
The true claim - If observers who have evolved within a universe observe its constants and quantities, it is highly probable that they will observe them as fine tuned for their existence. ...[text shortened]... f you throw a die, tell me the result was a 6, then the probability that you threw a 6 is now 1.[/b]

Are you saying that if I take a six sided die and toss it, whatever it landed to be, the probability of it being that outcome was 1 out of 1 ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you believe the universe is necessarily deterministic?
1. If you throw a die, the result is necessarily improbable.
2. If the dies result being improbable requires an explanation, then it must have been caused, ie there is no true randomness and the universe is deterministic.
3. If the universe is deterministic, then either it started with some brut ...[text shortened]... ns are improbable, but that they are special. But you seem to keep conveniently forgetting that.

I think God created the universe, therefore, the universe has to be special and the fine-tuning is just evidence of that. We can see around us how the various creatures are specially made to fit into the ecology of nature. It seems clear that we humans are also special with our superior intelligence over other animals. This is evidence that God made us that way for a purpose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you believe the universe is necessarily deterministic?
1. If you throw a die, the result is necessarily improbable.
2. If the dies result being improbable requires an explanation, then it must have been caused, ie there is no true randomness and the universe is deterministic.
3. If the universe is deterministic, then either it started with some brut ...[text shortened]... ns are improbable, but that they are special. But you seem to keep conveniently forgetting that.

Do you think pure chance had the power to create anything ?

Originally posted by sonship
Are you saying that if I take a six sided die and toss it, whatever it landed to be, the probability of it being [b]that outcome was 1 out of 1 ?[/b]

Before you throw it, the probability of it being a specific outcome is 1/6.
After you throw it, the probability of it being the outcome it is, is 1 out of 1.

Originally posted by sonship
Do you think pure chance had the power to create anything ?

That depends on what you mean by 'pure chance'.
I think brute facts are a necessary feature of existence. Even if you believe God exists, you either think his existence was caused by something else, or his existence is a brute fact. If you think his existence was caused by something else, you either end up with another brute fact, or an infinite chain of causation.
I don't know whether the universe is fully deterministic (after the brute facts).
What I do know is that Quantum Mechanics, to date, does not require determinism ie we do not know of a cause for quantum events (which can include the creation of particles).

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on what you mean by 'pure chance'.
I think brute facts are a necessary feature of existence. Even if you believe God exists, you either think his existence was caused by something else, or his existence is a brute fact. If you think his existence was caused by something else, you either end up with another brute fact, or an infinite chain of ...[text shortened]... m ie we do not know of a cause for quantum events (which can include the creation of particles).

The universe has already been proven to have had a beginning and that is an accepted fact by scientists. However, how it began is the subject of speculation by the scientists. The favorite idea of how the universe began, by most scientists, is the "Big Bang" Theory. The favorite idea among Christians is that the Universe was Created by God, who is eternal, without beginning or end.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Before you throw it, the probability of it being a specific outcome is 1/6.
After you throw it, the probability of it being the outcome it is, is 1 out of 1.

I don't know why you think that is helpful. After you throw the single die and it comes up 4 the probability was 1 out of 6 that it would. After you throw the die and it comes up 1 the probability was 1 out of 6 that it would. For future throws, all other things being the same, the probability remains 1 out of 6 that it will come up between 1 and 6.

And no user of a single die toss have I ever heard regard it as important to cleverly point out - "Well, now that the die is sitting there on the table as 5 its probability of being 5 is 1 out of 1."

This sounds like the Zen Buddhist -ization of Statistics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on what you mean by 'pure chance'.

I don't know whether the universe is fully deterministic (after the brute facts).

That depends on what you mean by 'pure chance'.

Do you believe nothing existed and by chance the universe came into existence ?

I think brute facts are a necessary feature of existence.

Is one of your "brute facts" that nothing existed, I mean no energy, no space, no matter, no time, and presto whamo ! Brute style, chance caused the universe to pop into existence ?

Even if you believe God exists, you either think his existence was caused by something else, or his existence is a brute fact.

God, by definition that most philosophers or theologians would understand is eternal, self existing and has the power of being in Himself.

The question I ask is not "Who else believes in brute facts?"
The question is do you believe chance was a casual agent to cause time, space, matter, and energy and the universe to come into existence, tuned, untuned, fine or ill tuned ?

If you think his existence was caused by something else, you either end up with another brute fact, or an infinite chain of causation.

The latter is out of the question to me. That is an infinite chain of causation.

By now I think you should have answered the question whether the only casual agent responsible for the universe's existence is chance and chance alone. You do believe that or you don't believe that ?

What I do know is that Quantum Mechanics, to date, does not require determinism ie we do not know of a cause for quantum events (which can include the creation of particles).

I don't, and I think you probably don't either, have a truly deep understanding of Quantum Physics.

Maybe you consider that you know all there is to know about the several diffferent schools of Quantum Mechanics. I don't.

Excuse me if rather than just take it from you with a wink, I will submit that I have never yet seen an argument from Quantum Mechanics which spoke of true nothingness.

For example, when Physicist Lawrence Krauss argues mightily that Quantum Physics allows for particles to pop into existence from nothing, upon close examination he is NOT really speaking of NOTHING. His Quantum vacuum is not really no thing. It is, if I understand right, seething with energy.

There is no need to give me more little caveats to contemplate. If you don't want to commit to answering whether chance is the causual agent that brought the universe into existence, I'll ask someone else.

Originally posted by sonship
And no user of a single die toss have I ever heard regard it as important to cleverly point out - "Well, now that the die is sitting there on the table as 5 its probability of being 5 is 1 out of 1."

This sounds like the Zen Buddhist -ization of Statistics.

Its all about perspective. Are you looking at the die before or after it is thrown. Is the number in question special because you thought of it before the die was thrown, or because it is the number you saw on the die after it was thrown.
When you throw a die, the probability that it will display a number is 1. (assuming you don't catch it in midair or some other cheat).

Although you don't regard these observations as important, you display a remarkable amount of confusion on the subject.

Originally posted by sonship
Do you believe nothing existed and by chance the universe came into existence ?

No, I have no idea how the universe came into existence or whether or not it did come into existence.

Is one of your "brute facts" that nothing existed, I mean no energy, no space, no matter, no time, and presto whamo ! Brute style, chance caused the universe to pop into existence ?
No.

God, by definition that most philosophers or theologians would understand is eternal, self existing and has the power of being in Himself.
So essentially a brute fact. Do you consider such a brute fact to be 'pure chance' or do you mean something else by the phrase 'pure chance'?

The question is do you believe chance was a casual agent to cause time, space, matter, and energy and the universe to come into existence, tuned, untuned, fine or ill tuned ?
Now I am confused. What do you mean by 'chance'? To me, it means the exact opposite of causation. How can chance be a causal agent? It just doesn't make sense.

The latter is out of the question to me. That is an infinite chain of causation.
You said he was eternal. Surely this means either an infinite chain of causation, or you don't mean 'infinite' when you say 'eternal' or God was once static and then by pure chance, started to change. Or you are using terminology in ways I do not understand, please clarify.

I don't, and I think you probably don't either, have a truly deep understanding of Quantum Physics.
Only a basic understanding. But I am pretty sure that it is not yet known whether or not the universe is deterministic.

Excuse me if rather than just take it from you with a wink, I will submit that I have never yet seen an argument from Quantum Mechanics which spoke of true nothingness.
I said nothing of true nothingness. You talked of creating, you said nothing about 'true nothingness', nor what that entails. A causative agent by definition is not 'true nothingness' and the word 'from' cannot work with 'true nothingness'. It is just incoherent to talk of 'true nothingness'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its all about perspective. Are you looking at the die before or after it is thrown. Is the number in question special because you thought of it before the die was thrown, or because it is the number you saw on the die after it was thrown.
When you throw a die, the probability that it will display a number is 1. (assuming you don't catch it in midair or s ...[text shortened]... rd these observations as important, you display a remarkable amount of confusion on the subject.

You seem to be the one confused to me. You aren't really a computer programmer now are you?