Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't find the fine tuning argument compelling at all. It seems like the argument really is that there can't be just one universe. Because any one universe would be improbable. Being amazed that we are here to think about it is just special pleading, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm familiar with that concept, i feel that life has evolved to fit the universe instead of the universe being fine tuned for life. Another set of constants might allow for types of life we can't imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There have been plenty of calculations done and papers written. In fact, I wrote one myself (published in Physical Review).

 

Here are a few examples.

 

What are the results in general? Do these calculations only asses one change at a time, or do they allow for different changes to offset each other?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the results in general? Do these calculations only asses one change at a time, or do they allow for different changes to offset each other?

 

Most just regard one parameter at a time. My paper was actually suggesting a way to quantify fine tuning with respect to multiple parameters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talkorigins has a nice set of responses to it:

 

Not a great set of responses though.

2.If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?

Can they provide proof of this statement? I doubt it.

5.If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.

Introducing an unproven multiverse hypothesis as an argument is not a "proof", or even a good argument.

6.Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).

The second sentence is okay, but the first? It repeats the unproven claim of the "scarcity" of life and makes unfounded assumptions as to timescale.

 

I would think that any entity or group that could influence the structure of a Universe would axiomatically be thinking on vastly different timescales to us humans.

 

7.In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

While it might argue against an Omnipotent creator, it does not argue against a designer per se.

 

Will that do for a start?;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a great set of responses though.

 

Can they provide proof of this statement? I doubt it.

The 'fine tuning' that religious texts talk about relates to life of humans. That's not a statement about alien life, it's a statement about us. Genesis speaks of God creating the universe and then *humanity*. The fine-tuning argument is about human life.

 

The universe, in contrast, is far from suitable to life. We need special equipment to go a few kilometers above the surface - let alone outside of the atmosphere.

 

The majority of the planets around us (not just in the solar system) are either too far from their stars (and hence, too cold/no atmosphere) or too close to their stars (and hence too hot, thick atmosphere) to sustain any sort of life as we know it.

 

Could there be life as we don't know it? Perhaps. But that would still be against the biblical account of creation, wouldn't it? It would still show that the universe was created to support other life, rather than *us* in particular, like the bible claims.

 

Introducing an unproven multiverse hypothesis as an argument is not a "proof", or even a good argument.

Yeah, I agree, the Anthropic principle - and its explanations/answers/whatevers is a problem in physics as well as philosophy. Not everyone agrees on the proposed solutions, and I wouldn't use it in a philosophical argument at all.

 

It could be interesting to talk about it in another thread, though. We've had that talk in the SPS club, and the consensus is that there's no consensus :rolleyes:

 

The second sentence is okay, but the first? It repeats the unproven claim of the "scarcity" of life and makes unfounded assumptions as to timescale.

Intelligent design speaks *SPECIFICALLY* about human life, though. It doesn't matter if life in general is abundant in space (which is unlikely for several reasons, but still), because intelligent design is referring to God and the bible, and the story of Genesis is about humans - in god's image - not about some life we never saw before or don't fit our usual definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.