tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1638175690805076715..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The fine-tuning argumentVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61662271599363446892016-01-12T20:32:01.132-07:002016-01-12T20:32:01.132-07:00Actually fine tuning argument is not required for ...Actually fine tuning argument is not required for proving the existence of God. Existence of God can also be proved without fine tuning. For this one can see the link below:<br /><br />https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/is-fine-tuning-actually-required-for-proving-the-existence-of-god/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68312347227257046442013-01-30T20:23:54.897-07:002013-01-30T20:23:54.897-07:00However, it seems not have occurred to you that th...<i>However, it seems not have occurred to you that there are many other readers of these comments who do not happen to embrace your superstitious beliefs.</i><br /><br />Oh wow, there are people who don't share my beliefs, who don't share Bob's beliefs? People who view our beliefs as <i><b>superstitious!?!</b></i> What's next? Gambling in Rick's Casino? I never realized this is possible. Oh thank you wise and exulted one, I never would have realized that there are people in this world who disagree with me or make it a point of being rude to boost there own frail little egos without you stating the obvious. Thank you again, kind sir. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75407072506784528912013-01-30T18:43:40.225-07:002013-01-30T18:43:40.225-07:00Llion,
“But, in fact, what you have just said is t...Llion,<br />“But, in fact, what you have just said is that your being an 'atheist' is relevant to whether or not you consider the argument to be "rationally acceptable"”<br /><br />That’s certainly not what I intended to mean by that, I was simply emphasizing that I’m giving the personal view of an atheist. His original comment was about what atheists should find rationally acceptable and I’m pointing myself out as a counterexample to that. I’m not saying that there might be some atheist out there who might not find the argument rationally acceptable for so and so reasons, I’m holding my hand high and saying I don’t accept the argument because of so and so. Perhaps a more apt phrasing would probably be “as a skeptically informed atheist,” (where my skepticism is both relevant to why I reject said argument and why I am an atheist) but that sounds a little pretentious. I think I’ll leave it as is under the understanding that the philosophy related to one’s atheism is relevant to their epistemology and their epistemology is relevant to whether they find certain arguments "rationally acceptable." So yes, it is loosely related, and no, there is no inconsistency.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36164144048804362832013-01-30T18:31:12.454-07:002013-01-30T18:31:12.454-07:00Thanks for your well-intended advice, B.
However,...Thanks for your well-intended advice, B.<br /><br />However, it seems not have occurred to you that there are many other readers of these comments who do not happen to embrace your superstitious beliefs.<br /><br />Just a thought :>)Cognosiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14556412288134268451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16320444040054805352013-01-30T12:59:34.074-07:002013-01-30T12:59:34.074-07:00"or any other fictions arising from the super..."<i>or any other fictions arising from the superstitious myths of religions</i>"<br /><br />You do realize that that is no way to start a debate, right? That is, if you are entering it in the hopes of convincing anyone of your point of view. But if you're just posting as a feel-good exercise, then go right on ahead. Keep in mind though, you've written yourself off as anyone to be taken seriously from the get-go.<br /><br />Just a friendly word of advice.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39936653964227109862013-01-30T12:29:30.081-07:002013-01-30T12:29:30.081-07:00The evidence for "fine tuning" is actual...The evidence for "fine tuning" is actually very strong. However, it in no way supports "Intelligent Design" or any other fictions arising from the superstitious myths of religions.<br /><br />The physical parameters are but the tip of the iceberg. There is actually a much greater body of evidence to support fine tuning to be found in fields of science far better established than cosmology.<br /><br />After all, perhaps the earliest proponent of fine-tuning was the biochemist Lawrence Henderson. In "The Fitness of the Environment", published in 1913, he observed that ""the whole evolutionary process, both cosmic and organic, is one, and the biologist may now rightly regard the universe in its very essence as biocentric"<br /><br />Geology, biology and particularly chemistry provide many examples of "just right" prevailing conditions that enable and, indeed, make virtually inevitable, the strong directionality we observe in evolutionary processes.<br /><br />The most recent part of this evolutionary continuum is that most familiar to us and of which we have the best knowledge: The autonomous evolution of technology within the medium of the collective imagination of our species.<br /><br />But the commonly held assumption that IF fine tuning is a valid phenomenon THEN it favors theism is flawed.<br /><br />Because it predicated by the very common and entirely intuitive belief that it suggests a "designer".<br /><br />But it can be very plausibly argued that, except in a very trivial sense, the concept of a "designer" is but an anthropocentric conceit for which there is no empirical basis.<br /><br />An objective examination of the history of science and technology bears this out.<br /><br />To quickly put this counter-intuitive view into focus, would you not agree that the following statement has a sound basis?<br /><br />We would have geometry without Euclid, calculus without Newton or Liebnitz, the camera without Johann Zahn, the cathode ray tube without JJ Thomson, relativity (and quantum mechanics) without Einstein, the digital computer without Turin, the Internet without Vinton Cerf.<br /><br />The list can. of course be extended indefinitely.<br /><br />This broad evolutionary model , extending well beyond the field of biology, is outlined, very informally, in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" which is a free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website.Cognosiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14556412288134268451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68715195657403940792013-01-30T12:04:45.903-07:002013-01-30T12:04:45.903-07:00Finally, the appearance of chaos does not negate t...Finally, the appearance of chaos does not negate the reality of order. So, even granting that the universe is full of chaos, that doesn't at all undermine the argument.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26649020024902293892013-01-30T12:03:12.009-07:002013-01-30T12:03:12.009-07:00William and cautiouslycurious, thank you for your ...William and cautiouslycurious, thank you for your answers.<br /><br />I'm not conflating chance with chaos. The argument from order that I offered is distinct from the fine-tuning argument, as I'm sure you recognize.<br /><br />Now, even on the quantum level there's a great deal of order. There are various laws governing quantum mechanics, such as path integral formulation. In any case, even allegedly chaotic events are intelligible, and intelligibility presupposes order. It's not as if "chaos" violates the laws of logic.<br /><br />Premise (2) may be true by definition, but the skeptic could always deny that there are laws of nature, a la David Hume. Of course, most of us probably reject that level of skepticism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69268720809998561962013-01-30T11:38:31.233-07:002013-01-30T11:38:31.233-07:00Ilion,
Thought I'd throw some red meat in you...Ilion,<br /><br />Thought I'd throw some red meat in your direction. Just so you know, I do have a bust of Lenin on my mantle.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44951060363124358872013-01-30T11:23:32.634-07:002013-01-30T11:23:32.634-07:00cautiouslycurious: "... the criticism is that...<b>cautiouslycurious:</b> "<i>... the criticism is that you’re both using criterion that is logically flawed and even then, the support given for the second premise does not obviously support it. I am simply explaining to you why, as an atheist, I don’t find that argument “rationally acceptable.”</i>"<br /><br />CC, do you understand that you have <i>accused yourself</i> of being intellectually dishonest?<br />IF your assertion about the flaws of the argument are correct (I don't have the time right now to backtrack and figure out what your claim is and whether it is correct), than that flaw is sufficient -- it is utterly irrelevant whether you are or are not an 'atheist'.<br /><br />But, in fact, what you have just said is that your being an 'atheist' is relevant to whether or not you consider the argument to be "rationally acceptable"<br /><br />===========<br /><b>bloody-minded apologist for leftism:</b> "<i>Ultimately, I think that the arguments from design and from fine tuning are both only "convincing" to the convinced. </i>"<br /><br />Are the rest of you people even capable of comprehending that Prokop, that vile leftist, has accused *all* of you, whether "theist" or not, of being intellectually dishonest?<br /><br />You people shriek like a bunch of girls when I point to (and condemn) actual instances of intellectual dishonesty, but you're OK with such blanket assertions that all or you are intellectually dishonest.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2414630334362715952013-01-30T06:34:48.016-07:002013-01-30T06:34:48.016-07:00@William:
"Let us distinguish "chance&q...@William:<br /><br />"Let us distinguish "chance" from chaos, ok? Or else..."<br /><br />I do not think Doug is making that mistake.<br /><br />"Aren't the probabilistic regularities of quantum mechanics are a chance based regularity?"<br /><br />My first answer would be no, but I probably should ask for a clarification of what you mean "chance based regularity".<br /><br />"could one be led to say that in quantum mechanics, the laws of nature ARE those of chance alone?"<br /><br />No.<br /><br />There seems to be a mistaken assumption going on. Whether the "laws of nature" are deterministic or probabilistic in character is largely irrelevant to the thrust of what Doug is saying.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35327670863194228052013-01-30T06:34:21.243-07:002013-01-30T06:34:21.243-07:00@Leonhard:
A correction: in the endnote, replace ...@Leonhard:<br /><br />A correction: in the endnote, replace "physical laws" by "laws of nature".grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56754391974408547772013-01-30T06:26:58.795-07:002013-01-30T06:26:58.795-07:00@Leonhard:
I actually think that we are in substa...@Leonhard:<br /><br />I actually think that we are in substantial agreement (in the issues under discussion), and the disagreement there is is largely because we are aiming at different things.<br /><br />1. I was not expecting you to the defend the PoE; I did not have the faintest idea of where your sympathies lie in the theist question. As a Christian of a philosophical AT bent, my only point in bringing it up was to give an example of *if* we take your objection at heart then it undermines many arguments (which have reasonable, not-obviously fallacious formulations; at least some do), including ones from the atheist side.<br /><br />2. If all you are saying is that if the fine-tuning argument is construed as "the space of free parameters is infinite (in more than one sense), the region of free parameters allowing for life anywhere in the universe is a tiny, narrow one, ergo the probability of arising a life-permitting universe is vanishingly small" and that this argument is wrong for, among others, the reasons you state, then I do not disagree with you. But *serious* defenders of the fine-tuning argument, which is an inference to the best explanation argument, do *not* argue in this way. Rather, the atheist responding to it, must come up with some version of this (e.g. a life-permitting universe-producing mechanism), and the defender's job is to shoot it down which is precisely what serious defenders do.<br /><br />And I do repeat that my interest in the argument is not in the argument itself, but in what it points to; in particular, the rather entertaining spectacle of watching people advance wild speculative theories without a single iota of experimental evidence, theories that in most cases, cannot even have experimental evidence for them, not even in principle (actually in all cases that I know of -- but here I confess my ignorance).<br /><br />3. As for my comment on the shell game being played with fine-tuning, it is simply the observation that typical responses to fine-tuning come in the form of theories. Every theory depends on free parameters, coupling constants, boundary conditions, etc. So the fine-tuning has simply been kicked to another level, because know we can ask why does the fine-tuning mechanism has just such free parameters, coupling constants, boundary conditions, etc. and not any others.<br /><br />Let me put this in another way. Suppose that we did come up with a theory with *no* free parameters, coupling constants, boundary conditions, etc. Suppose also that this is the True Theory about the (multi)universe. Then we would have found a modest, but nevertheless quite spectacular and stunningly impressive, proof of the necessity status of physical laws (*), for only its *general form* would be a contingent fact (say, a nonlinear PDE in as in GR) and no other empirical input would be needed to pin them down. There is no single example of such a beast and I cannot even imagine what it would be like. But this may well be my limitation so you know what you have to do to prove me wrong.<br /><br />(*) I do not think any coherent sense can be made of the term "physical laws". But for the sake of simplification I am using it in its naive sense.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86073351466636444572013-01-30T06:22:59.953-07:002013-01-30T06:22:59.953-07:00Doug,
“How would you respond to the following argu...Doug,<br />“How would you respond to the following argument?”<br /><br />I would reject the first premise. Processes with random variables do exhibit regularities due to the law of large numbers. If you look deep down, you will find a lot of variance, but at the macroscopic level, there will be little variation (i.e. regularity). A casino may lose any given bet, but they will regularly win in the long run. As we’ve learned, we can only see nature (with the unaided eye) at the macro level so it’s not odd to see regularities even if they are the result of stochastic processes. By the way, the second premise is true by definition. If a law didn’t exhibit regularity, then it wouldn’t be a law in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62834875325095640152013-01-30T00:02:30.757-07:002013-01-30T00:02:30.757-07:00Doug,
Let us distinguish "chance" from ...Doug,<br /><br />Let us distinguish "chance" from chaos, ok? Or else...<br /><br />Aren't the probabilistic regularities of quantum mechanics are a chance based regularity? could one be led to say that in quantum mechanics, the laws of nature ARE those of chance alone? <br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15679122374113382502013-01-29T22:48:15.070-07:002013-01-29T22:48:15.070-07:00Cautiouslycurious, I appreciate your candor. How ...Cautiouslycurious, I appreciate your candor. How would you respond to the following argument?<br /><br />1. Whatever exhibits regularity is not the result of chance alone. (Premise)<br /><br />2. The laws of nature exhibit regularity. (Premise)<br /><br />3. Therefore, the laws of nature are not the result of chance alone. (From 1 and 2)<br /><br />Seems like a fairly benign argument to me. Yet, if true, it illustrates that the laws of nature are the result of someone's or something's providence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11957605136274141812013-01-29T22:05:25.107-07:002013-01-29T22:05:25.107-07:00Doug,
“Let me ask you this: is it rationally compe...Doug,<br />“Let me ask you this: is it rationally compelling that the universe's fine-tuning is the result of chance?”<br /><br />If pressed, I would say that we don’t know with a strong degree of certainty for any option. None of the options would be rationally compelling (although I think it’s rationally compelling to say it’s not due to logical necessity). I don’t try to convince people based on things that are largely unknowns, and I don’t like it when people try to do that. I’m more of a militant agnostic in this area, saying I don’t know and neither do you. I’m not trying to defend my view here, I’m simply asking others to defend theirs (and I'm less than satisfied with their ability to do so). Personally, if I had to throw something out there, I would go with chance due to the Copernican Principle.<br /><br />llion, <br />As I understand it, necessity can refer to logical necessity and chance can refer to either brute facts or physical necessity. It is no guarantee that life is a logical necessity so if the origins of the universe is a brute fact, then it boils down to chance that we’re speaking here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77370672217754298512013-01-29T15:52:49.910-07:002013-01-29T15:52:49.910-07:00Ilion, I agree with you completely. I'm tryin...Ilion, I agree with you completely. I'm trying to figure out what cautiouslycurious's position on this is. If it's not rationally compelling that the universe's fine-tuning is the result of chance, then it must at the very least be rationally acceptable to conclude it's the result of either necessity or design.<br /><br />By the way, cautiouslycurious, it's entirely possible that I just don't understand your objections. The fine-tuning argument has never been my strong suite. I'm much better versed in defending the Aristotelian-Thomistic arguments.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16809458511119462212013-01-29T15:10:03.232-07:002013-01-29T15:10:03.232-07:00"Let me ask you this: is it rationally compel..."<i>Let me ask you this: is it rationally compelling that the universe's fine-tuning is the result of chance?</i>"<br /><br />NO! For, to say that something is the result of chance (or 'randomness') is exactly to say that it's the result of nothing at all.<br /><br />To speak of chance (or 'randomness') is to speak of <i>a lack of correlation</i> between things. So, to speak of chance (or 'randomness') when speaking of the relationship between an effect and its cause is to say <i>that there is no relationship</i> between the effect and its cause -- that is, to speak in this manner is to state an absurdity.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33822825980505282652013-01-29T14:38:52.963-07:002013-01-29T14:38:52.963-07:00Let me ask you this: is it rationally compelling t...Let me ask you this: is it rationally compelling that the universe's fine-tuning is the result of chance?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67602111253876829952013-01-29T14:34:09.698-07:002013-01-29T14:34:09.698-07:00Doug,
“Your criticism presupposes some kind of att...Doug,<br />“Your criticism presupposes some kind of attempt after attempt at coming up with a finely-tuned universe. This isn't like rolling a die a billion times.”<br /><br />I’ve presented two criticisms, one targeted at the original argument, and one targeted at the criteria you’re using to judge an argument. The criticism targeted at the original question does not presume multiple trials.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15067492179920673552013-01-29T11:44:16.786-07:002013-01-29T11:44:16.786-07:00Your criticism presupposes some kind of attempt af...Your criticism presupposes some kind of attempt after attempt at coming up with a finely-tuned universe. This isn't like rolling a die a billion times.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23302948818229653872013-01-29T06:36:16.638-07:002013-01-29T06:36:16.638-07:00Doug,
“So call it an inductive argument. What non-...Doug,<br />“So call it an inductive argument. What non-trivial difference does it make?”<br /><br />I’m not even sure your argument could even be considered an inductive argument considering the flaw that I’ve pointed out, but that’s beside the point. The criticism has nothing to do with whether Craig or you think you’re using deduction when you’re really using induction; the criticism is that you’re both using criterion that is logically flawed and even then, the support given for the second premise does not obviously support it. I am simply explaining to you why, as an atheist, I don’t find that argument “rationally acceptable.” Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2379612217572575162013-01-28T18:17:34.483-07:002013-01-28T18:17:34.483-07:00So call it an inductive argument. What non-trivia...So call it an inductive argument. What non-trivial difference does it make?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21806585531212983322013-01-28T17:14:29.865-07:002013-01-28T17:14:29.865-07:00Doug,
“Cautiouslycurious, if it's unlikely to ...Doug,<br />“Cautiouslycurious, if it's unlikely to happen by chance (and that's a vast understatement), then it's most likely the case that's it's either due to necessity or design.”<br /><br />When I deal out a hand of cards, is the sequence due to necessity or design? Or how about rolling a die 100 times? Not only is that conclusion not logically entailed, it is not even what the second premise states.<br /><br />“The argument's premises need only be more plausibly true than their negations in order for the conclusion to be justified.”<br /><br />Sorry, but this is not how deduction works. Just one example:<br /><br />1. The 1rst roll of a fair six-sided die will not be a six.<br />2. The 2nd roll of a fair six-sided die will not be a six.<br />…<br />100. The 100th roll of a six-sided fair die will not be a six.<br /><br />Conclusion: Therefore, the fair six-sided die will not roll a six on any of the rolls when I roll it 100 times. Since all of the premises are more plausibly true than their negations, the conclusion is justified by your standards even though the probability of it being true is close to one in a hundred thousand. It’s a deductively valid argument, but it’s useless because it’s unlikely that all of the premises will be true even though all of them individually are likely to be true; induction and deduction don’t mix like that. If you still think your criterion is reasonable, then I’d like to gamble with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com