• KingOfTheSouthBay
    the teleological argument

    fine tuning - robin collins
    Luke Barne’s Examples of Fine Tuning suggests that every little detail about life as we know it in the universe is based on extremely fine, hair point precise measurements of matter, laws and parameters of physics and distribution of energy.

    Knowing this, we could imagine the precise conditions for our universe being one goal on a skiball pit filled with 3,000 goals fashioned 40 feet away from the pitching platform. unless one were to pitch the skiball into this one of 3,000 sinkhole with exceptional - and incredible - accuracy, life in the universe as we know it would be impossible.

    the fact that the skiball infact did sink into the goal representing the life permitting universe that we live in has a very large implication that someone had to have walked the ball into the sinkhole, rather threw the ball willy-nilly and by chance scored the goal as it is extremely improbable that our universe's existence has come to be by chance.

    The prime principle of confirmation

    states that “whenever we are considering two competing hypothesis, an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which the observation has the highest probability”

    so, in this post I choose to argue that the fine tuning data are not improbable under theism and that the fine tuning data are improbable under the atheistic single universe hypothesis.

    knowing that *if* some evidence is not improbable on Hypothesis 1 but very improbable on Hypothesis 2, the evidence then provided serves as strong support for H1.

    so, the fine tuning data provide strong evidence to
    favor the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis

    (support for premise 1)

    it’s easy to support and follow my first premise, the argument can be reduced down to “since God is benevolent and it would be good for an ultimate benevolent creature to exist, it’s not far fetched to suggest that God would create a world with living, intelligent life.

    this illustrates that fine tuning is NOT improbable under theism.

    (support for premise 2)

    using the "universe is a court of ski-ball" illustration as an example, the starting conditions of the universe and the natural laws of physics are thought of as one goal on a ski-ball court that represents all possible outcomes of reality and the conditions needed for life exist as one goal out of 3000 in the court.

    it follows from this illustration that it seems highly unlikely for the fine tuning of the universe to occur under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis - highly unlikely that - completely at random - the ski-ball thrower lands a ball in that one in 3,000 goal by chance - springing the creation of a life containing universe into existence.

    ( premise 3 )

    the prime principal of confirmation has been around for years and thoroughly agreed upon. many philosophers believe that the principle is the product of “probability calculus” which is the set of mathematical rules that are most often assumed to dictate the nature of probability.

    there does not seem to be a case of obviously good reasoning that goes against this principle.

    the principle seems to have a large variety of appropriate applications, being the basis of most of our reasoning and assumption in science and everyday life. furthermore, it’s been said that an even simpler version of the principle is the foundation for all scientific reasoning. with this, we have reason to be very confident in the principle of confirmation
    principle of confirmation confirmed.

    ( objections )

    (doomsday argument)
    Michael Huemer’s paradox lost provides “THE DOOMSDAY ARGUMENT”

    it follows that
    given the trend of population growth, *if* the human species lasts for years and years into the future, then the great majority of humans who will ever live will turn out to have lived in a time later than now, in a more advanced society than this. if that’s the case, then you should see living right now as a surprise. it should be a surprise to you that you find yourself living in such a “primitive time” rather a more advanced age in the future where the majority of humanity will live.

    on the other hand if the human species has only a few generations left, then it wouldn’t be surprising that you exist now, rather in the advanced future.

    therefore, the fact that you live now is evidence that the human species will not last much longer.

    for clarity the argument, the argument flows as

    h1 the human species will not last long into the future
    h2 the human species will last long into the future
    evidence: you find yourself living in this primitive fine with a relatively small population
    prime principle: if some evidence is not improbable on h1 but very improbable on h2, then that evidence provides strong evidence for h1
    conclusion: we have here strong evidence that the human species will not last long into the future

    ( counter example to this objection )

    the problem is that the doomsday argument tries to relate apples to oranges. the analogy in question is dependent on the thought that if T is true, T being the idea that the human species were going to persist for a very long time, then you’d have been less likely to find yourself existing now and more likely to have found yourself existing later in time - when humans are far more

    assuming that there is no backwards causation, this argument doesn’t hold true.
    the probability of being born today, tomorrow, yesterday, or in 4,000 years is completely unaffected by anything that happens later in time. therefore, the fact that you were born at this current period of human existence does not provide any evidence about what will happen to humans later on.

    (anthropic principle)

    the anthropic principle argues against my premise 2.

    according to the slightly weakened version of the anthropic principle, had the laws of nature not been fine tuned, we wouldn’t exist

    godless heathens argue therefore, that the fine tuning is actually not unlikely with the atheism hypothesis, indeed follows from the fact that we are here to speculate the origins of the universe.

    a quote from richard dawkins states, “however small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.

    the anthropic principle serves as an alternative explanation to the design hypothesis.

    ( counter )
    in support of my argument, i include Robin Collin’s response which reads as,

    “if fifty sharp shooters all miss me, the response ‘if they had not missed me, i wouldn’t be here to consider the fact’ is not adequate. instead, i would naturally conclude that there was some reason why they all missed, such as that they never really intended to kill me.”

    Collin’s response is detrimental to the anthropic principle as it illustrates a potholed flaw in the argument.

    ( multiverse hypothesis )

    I now present to you, The multiverse hypothesis

    The multiverse hypothesis proposes there’s a large amount - perhaps an infinite amount - of universes with set parameters of matter and physical laws. necessarily, in most of these universes the parameters for life would not be present. Regardless, a good handful of those existing universes would have the parameters necessary for life to be present and consequently, it is not unlikely for a universe such as ours to exist.

    Question may follow, asking "how and why this is relevant to the fine tuning argument."

    I shall answer these questions shortly,

    With the help of Collin’s first objection against multiverse hypothesis, we understand that,

    “Everything else being equal, we should prefer hypotheses for which we have independent evidence or that are natural extrapolations from what we already know. In the case of the fine tuning, we already know that minds often produce fine tuned devices. Postulating God - a supermind - as the explanation of the fine tuning, therefore, is a natural extrapolation from of what we already observe.”

    “In contrast, it Is difficult to see how the atheistic many-universes hypothesis could be considered a natural exploration from what we observe. Moreover, unlike the atheistic many - universes hypothesis, we have some experiential evidence for the existence of God, namely religious experience.”

    Even if Collins objections all fall flat, the suggestions he'd made are reasonable

    His and my argument follows

    P: God exists
    P2: God probably exist
    E1: the fine tuning data provide strong evidence to favor the design hypothesis over the atheistic single universe hypothesis

    Using this flow of logic, say my house’s front door is wide open when I come home. I assume it was probably a robber.

    My loose-cannon friend suggest’s that the door opened itself because the temperature outside was just right to spontaneously induce life into my dark oakwood, white stained chapel glass front door on a Wednesday afternoon.

    Then, we hear the door squeak in a tone that seems to sound like “YeEeeEss” as I close it.

    My friend then says “yes! This strongly supports my Herbie Fully Loaded hypothesis over your robber hypothesis”

    Maybe this small bit of evidence does support my insane friend, however given our background knowledge of the world we live in, his hypothesis is still extremely improbable.

    The atheist could give a similar response to the soldier of God. maybe the fine tuning data confirm theism over atheism, however given our understanding of the universe as we know it, this is still a highly improbable explanation.

    Whether or not the argument makes theism more likely cannot be assessed until we have access to all of the evidence of the universe.
  • Tom Storm
    P: God exists
    P2: God probably exist
    E1: the fine tuning data provide strong evidence to favor the design hypothesis over the atheistic single universe hypothesis

    Huh? A pretty messy syllogism. Nether premise 1 or 2 can be established. 3 does not follow from 1 or 2 and you have introduced a new item (atheism) which does not appear in 1 or 2 and therefore should not be included in a conclusion.

    The other problem is that any fine tuning argument can also be used to support the idea that we are living in a curated simulation designed by an alien race. Given that there is increasing documented evidence of alien visits and technology on earth, this scenario seems slightly more plausible and does not need to make appeals to the supernatural. :wink:
  • 180 Proof
    An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias, or illusion; nature is not fine-tuned for us, rather we fine-tune our concepts and models to nature.180 Proof
    By an overwhelmingly astronomical prepondance of the evidence in the Hubble volume, this universe is apparently "fine-tuned" for lifelessness.
  • EugeneW
    There are only a few fine-tunings. These are the four coupling strengths of particles. If these are eternal and fixed, there is no explanation needed for their values. They form a logical ensemble to produce massive triplets at the ultra small scale (somewhere between and math]10^{-35}[/math] meter), massive hadrons on a larger scale, and structures evolving in the realm of infinity.
Add a Comment