Sermon On Fine Tune Argument

[LNC]

A couple questions and comments.

 

If god is the originator of logic and somehow can change it, ground it whatever, how does his mind operate? If its not by logic then we can't can't understand anything he says or does at all. Right? Even the bible would be moot if that is the case. We would have no concept of reality even dealing with handed out divine revelation.

 

If god has always been, does that means he created himself, or he decided what his mind will be? What says he is perfect then, if there is some absolute, him right, by fiat? To hell with any logical or moral absolutes then I guess. The earth would be a sims game. I thought self caused causes don't work?

 

So he grounds logic right, to does that mean there is some absolutes he doesn't abide by that he has toss out that we don't seem to know about? After all what is there to ground if there is only just certain logical absolutes. Or is there a pool he just picks from. So what do you mean by grounds logic? Thought he can't go against a absolute without contradiction?

 

I don't argue that God can change logic as I believe that it is tied to his eternal and unchanging nature. His mind operates according to his nature and logic is a part of his nature.

 

God is by definition an uncreated self-existent being. He had no beginning and has no end. He is a necessary being and the author of a contingent universe, of which we are a part. Contingency requires a beginning, while a necessary being does not. The universe is made up of matter, which is not eternal according to the laws of physics. God is immaterial and therefore not bound by the laws of physics.

 

Again, since logic is a part of God's nature, then he abides by his nature. It is not something external to God by which he is bound, but something that is essential to him and therefore acts according to that nature. The reason that there can be objective logical or moral standards is because God is eternal and transcendent to us and those are aspects of his nature that have been revealed to us.

 

What you are, in essence, referring to is a type of Euthyphro argument where God is either bound by some eternal standard that is external to him or is completely arbitrary in his pronouncements; however, that is resolved by the fact that these attributes are part of God's eternal nature and that God acts according to his eternal nature. it is neither separate from him or arbitrary.

 

I hope that helps you to understand.

 

LNC

[LNC]

The Fine-Tuning argument of course falls apart once we realize that we do not live in a hospitable environment. The multitude of natural disasters aside an account must be made of disease, or the fact that if I fall more than 10m or am submerged in water for more than 10 minutes I will probably die. Yes, the Earth is a wonderful, padded room designed for life. Take me above 8,000 meters and I will slowly suffocate to death. Go 2,000 meters underground and I will die. Few areas of the Earth are actually habitable. 78% of the Earth is covered in seawater. Kevin Costner with gills aside, no one would last long living in that environment. So of the remaining 22% of the Earth how much of it is hospitable? Roughly, 15% and that's a liberal number. Fluctuating oxygen levels, solar energy, a brightening sun, diminishing tidal drag, or any number of galactic catastrophes are just a few of the many random things that could change the Earth from it's current form back to one that is uninhabitable. Your view is based off the Earth as it is today and not the inhospitable to us Earth that was around before. Looking around at the space around us doesn't give much comfort either. I encourage you to try living in a vacuum. If you could survive long enough, eventually cosmic radiation or the horrible coldness of the shade would kill you off. 99.9999 continues on for awhile....% of the universe is uninhabitable to us. Stars are fundamental to the beginnings of life since they produce energy and the necessary higher elements required for a universe that could give rise to life. Initial conditions aside a universe that has stars is one that is inherently geared towards eventually producing life. We are adapted to the universe, the universe is not adapted around us. Fine-Tuning is yet another head of the "god of the gaps" argument, wherein if something cannot yet be explained by science, well golly gee Gawd musta done it. You would think our universe were fine-tuned for life, it would conceivably be the best universe that life could live in, yet it is not.

 

The "accident" by which we find ourselves here should not be bogged down by an egocentric and narcissistic view that the entire universe in all of it's coldness, harshness and beauty is actually made for us. That the entire universe, with colliding galaxies, dying stars, disintegrating planets and mysterious black holes is fine-tuned just so an evolved ape could look up a it does not do it justice.

 

Sorry, but what you have provided is not an argument against fine-tuning. When one looks at the universe as a whole, then the rest of the universe, as we know it, is inhospitable to life. We live in an extremely hospitable part of the universe and, for that matter, a hospitable part of our galaxy. The fact that you cannot play in traffic without the potential for being hurt or killed is not an argument against this fact. In just the same way, because you can O.D. on prescription drugs, does not mean that they weren't designed to cure disease or alleviate suffering. Because people get killed in car accidents doesn't mean that cars weren't designed to make our travel easier. In other words, because something can be used inappropriately, doesn't mean that it wasn't finely crafted to be used appropriately.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

Hopefully, I haven't spoiled the fun with my response.

No, you haven't.

 

Tomorrow, when my head is cleared up, I will try to make some kind of comprehensible response.

 

(Had a little celebration tonight, and some drinks.)

[Neon Genesis]

 

Again, there is no one who argues that everything needs a creator, only created things need a creator. God, by definition (not mine, but the historical definition) is an uncreated being, a necessary being. What you are arguing for is an infinite chain of causal events, which leads to logical absurdities. There has to be, as Aquinas and others have argued, an ultimate necessary starting point to created effects. Now, if you want to show me how a series of effects can continue back in the past without a necessary starting point without leading to the absurdities that exist with that explanation, then please be my guest. The other option is that effects just popped into existence uncaused at some point in the past, which also is problematic.

Watch this whole documentary by Stephen Hawking. It'll answer all your questions:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chakKbPNI3w

 

I don't argue that God exists outside the laws of logic, rather as I mentioned, I argue that God is the grounding for the existence of logic. However, I still haven't seen you show me an example of someone who argues that God exists outside the laws of logic. I would be interested in knowing to whom you are referring. The quote that you provided does not give evidence to that effect. In fact, that quote is logically consistent. So again, please let me know who holds the view that God exists outside of logic.

 

LNC

If you don't understand basic Christian apologetics 101, that's your problem, not mine. Go read about these arguments on your own and do your own homework because I'm not going to do it for you. I'm not going to explain Christian apologetics to someone who's already a Christian. That would be like the biggest waste of time.

[Guest Valk0010]

A couple questions and comments.

 

If god is the originator of logic and somehow can change it, ground it whatever, how does his mind operate? If its not by logic then we can't can't understand anything he says or does at all. Right? Even the bible would be moot if that is the case. We would have no concept of reality even dealing with handed out divine revelation.

 

If god has always been, does that means he created himself, or he decided what his mind will be? What says he is perfect then, if there is some absolute, him right, by fiat? To hell with any logical or moral absolutes then I guess. The earth would be a sims game. I thought self caused causes don't work?

 

So he grounds logic right, to does that mean there is some absolutes he doesn't abide by that he has toss out that we don't seem to know about? After all what is there to ground if there is only just certain logical absolutes. Or is there a pool he just picks from. So what do you mean by grounds logic? Thought he can't go against a absolute without contradiction?

 

I don't argue that God can change logic as I believe that it is tied to his eternal and unchanging nature. His mind operates according to his nature and logic is a part of his nature.

If I was a theist I would agree with that. And if fact from a technical sense as a I atheist i agree with that so no problem there.

 

God is by definition an uncreated self-existent being. He had no beginning and has no end. He is a necessary being and the author of a contingent universe, of which we are a part. Contingency requires a beginning, while a necessary being does not. The universe is made up of matter, which is not eternal according to the laws of physics. God is immaterial and therefore not bound by the laws of physics.

Well I guess I should be asking something to the effect of did god evolve, if he is the source of all minds, how did he become a mind. I would disagree slightly with your statement about being bound by the laws of physics, say a deist god would not be bound by physics ever because that being would never interfere, but if your in space time etc, your in space time etc, you can't be both something and not something(like non physical and physical) at the same time, you either one of the other.

 

Again, since logic is a part of God's nature, then he abides by his nature. It is not something external to God by which he is bound, but something that is essential to him and therefore acts according to that nature. The reason that there can be objective logical or moral standards is because God is eternal and transcendent to us and those are aspects of his nature that have been revealed to us.

 

What you are, in essence, referring to is a type of Euthyphro argument where God is either bound by some eternal standard that is external to him or is completely arbitrary in his pronouncements; however, that is resolved by the fact that these attributes are part of God's eternal nature and that God acts according to his eternal nature. it is neither separate from him or arbitrary.

 

Your right I am making a euthyphro logic type arguement. And similar to the rebuttal about the moral argument version, is what god nature is logical because he says it is, or because it is regardless of him.

[Guest Valk0010]

Most more advance apologetics I am aware of limit god's being all perfect qualities to get out of logic problems like the problem of evil. And as far as I am aware, most apologists say that god is constrained by logic because he can't contradict himself.

[BrotherJosh]

Sorry, but what you have provided is not an argument against fine-tuning. When one looks at the universe as a whole, then the rest of the universe, as we know it, is inhospitable to life. We live in an extremely hospitable part of the universe and, for that matter, a hospitable part of our galaxy. The fact that you cannot play in traffic without the potential for being hurt or killed is not an argument against this fact. In just the same way, because you can O.D. on prescription drugs, does not mean that they weren't designed to cure disease or alleviate suffering. Because people get killed in car accidents doesn't mean that cars weren't designed to make our travel easier. In other words, because something can be used inappropriately, doesn't mean that it wasn't finely crafted to be used appropriately.

 

LNC

 

Sorry, but what you have provided is not an argument for fine-tuning. When you actually look at the universe as a whole, we do not live in an extremely hospitable part of the universe or even our own galaxy. The inhospitable planet that we live on is evidence of this. In 2004 a tsunami killed around 300,000 people. This is not a hospitable planet. It is hospitable, enough, at this present time (ignoring previous epochs) for the evolution of life to flourish. You would think if it were fine-tuned, there would be less natural disasters?

 

You are placing intention behind something that does not naturally have intention, by comparing cars and drugs you place intentions in the same region as the natural and try to draw comparisons between the two. It is the same as saying that a tree's branch fell on my head while I was walking down the sidewalk. Trees, provide oxygen, shade and potentially fruit but they can also be abused and branches can fall on my head. Why am I placing intention behind the falling branch?

 

The Fine-Tuned argument does not offer any prediction or theory on how or why we find ourselves hurtling around space on our little blue planet, because it does not address what method this God used in fine-tuning this universe. What is the modus operandi of God? If we the universe is fine-tuned for us, why aren't we ourselves more fine-tuned? The way in which we came about, if there was a God present calls in to question the methods of this God. If he truly were fine-tuning the universe, you would think the early evolution of man would have been a little more easy and less precarious.

 

Again, I return to it's a point of view. The fine-tuned argument is based on an egocentric and narcissistic world-view that with a gripping fury refuses to let go of the thinking that we are the focal point of the universe.

 

[skepticalme]

I disagree with "fine tuned universe" arguments. These are no different than saying a puddle is fine tuned to contain water. Changing variables like the local topography just moves where puddles can form. In fact, it is the waters ability to conform that does the hard work, just as evolution does the hard work of making life conform to the present conditions. Even the concept of "Goldilocks zones" is a bit misleading. If Europa contains as much liquid water as astrophysisists suspect, that places more liquid water OUTSIDE the "goldilocks zone" than within it inside our solar system. Even within our solar system Mars and Venus fall within the "Goldilocks zone". It is the density of their respective atmosheres than prohibits liquid water, not their proximity to the sun. If you could tampering with cosmic variables its possible that one of those could be a haven for life and not Earth. Even altering variables like the fundamental forces of gravity and nuclear foces would alter star and planet formations, but wouldn't neccesarily stop it. It might take 100 billion years to form an Earth like planet or only a billion years. It only shifts the window. And this isn't even looking at the prospect of life outside of Earth like conditions. We haven't found any yet but this may be a result of our limited ability to explore (no star ships yet). Ther may be more planets than stars in the universe. The entire spectrum exist, from most hospitable to least hospitable planets. Earth happens to be on the hospitable end of that spectrum. If the universe is so finely tuned then why aren't all of them hospitable? There is a statiscally probability of Earth like planets existing, 1 in x-billion. There are billions of planets. It is a virtual certainty that 'Earths' will exist due solely to natural forces.

 

The "fine tuned universe" argument is a logical fallacy, they are an appeal to final consequences.

[ShackledNoMore]

I think Neon's parent's pastor's mistake was not in making this observation itself, but in his unspoken assumption that our not having discovered another earth-like planet so far is evidence that the christian god fine-tuned the universe just for us (and therefore exists). It was a flawed attempt to provide supporting evidence to a flawed fine tuning argument.

 

Whether or not we find any other planets capable of sustaining life is irrelevant to the fact that the universe is fine tuned and that Earth is in a unique habitable zone. In fact, let's just focus on the life-sustaining nature of the universe rather than the zone in which Earth lies. Based upon the conditions of the universe we know that fine tuning is present. Read a book like Paul Davies' Cosmic Jackpot and you will realize just how finely tuned the universe is to be life-sustaining. Neon's pastor is correct in the fact that we have no evidence of any other planet that is life-sustaining; however, that alone is not all of the evidence we have for fine-tuning.

 

LNC

You don't necessarily need to convince me that the universe is fine tuned to contain life, but I do not have a really good feel for just how well we "hit the jackpot," cosmologically speaking. Why do the universal constants in our universe have the values they do? What about multiverses? How many "just right" universes can be conceived? One? A finite number? An infinite number? How many could host some form of life for which its universe is fine tuned, but which would not support human life? I hope we learn more about these things. I have not read Cosmic Jackpot, but I think I'll put it on my list if I can find enough time.

[ShackledNoMore]

Have either of you read Arthur C. Clarke's novel, The Songs of Distant Earth? It tackles this particular issue head on, and how they deal with the problem is pretty central to the book. It's one of the best science fiction novels out there, in my opinion.

 

I haven't read it, what does he propose?

 

LNC

I don't want to spoil things for anyone who hasn't read the book and wants to, but I think it's safe to say that they use an ice shield.

 

There is also interesting treatment of the question of how common other life is outside of Earth.

[Sybaris]

 

God is by definition an uncreated self-existent being. He had no beginning and has no end. He is a necessary being and the author of a contingent universe, of which we are a part.

 

References please?

[Seeking]

I haven't read through this whole thread yet, so my reply may be way off topic by this point, but I wanted to address something that was said.

 

The other problem is that even accepting the design argument, it doesn't prove who the designer is but Christians automatically assume the designer must be their god.

I discussed this very point with my parents, in an e-mail exchange a while back. My mom said (among many other things!):

 

I believe we have three options:

 

1. A pre-existent universe with no creator, in which case nothing is required of us and we go merrily on our way until we return to dust,

2. We have a god of our own making - in other words, custom made by us to suit us

3. A pre-existent God who was the first cause of everything else, and who created the earth - the God of the Bible.

I replied:

 

You said that we have three options, and the one you chose was “A pre-existent God who was the first cause of everything else, and who created the earth – the God of the Bible.” Why does it have to be the god of the Bible? How do you make the leap from “Life is grand!” to “The deity written about in *this* particular ancient tome must be responsible for all of this!”?

 

In every other religion that has ever existed, adherents have had the same faith you do that their religion/god is the right one. Countless people who worship a different god have the same certainty you do! Why do you think you have the true religion? Just as you think they are deluded, they are fully confident that you are the deluded one. In every religion, people have mystical experiences; they think their prayers are answered; they have faith; they think they witness miracles. How do you explain that? Why does every other religion have followers who have just as much faith and devotion as you, and who feel just as fulfilled in their beliefs as you?

 

And how do you know that you are one of the lucky few who got it right, even within the confines of your own religion? There are 35,000+ Christian denominations – unique denominations, not individual churches – each of which disagrees with all of the others on at least one point of doctrine. Many of them even disagree on which books should be included in the Bible! Yet each of them believes that their viewpoint is the right one. Each of them believes that the holy spirit is giving them the correct interpretation of the Bible. Clearly, they can’t all be right!

And so on.

[LNC]

Again, there is no one who argues that everything needs a creator, only created things need a creator. God, by definition (not mine, but the historical definition) is an uncreated being, a necessary being. What you are arguing for is an infinite chain of causal events, which leads to logical absurdities. There has to be, as Aquinas and others have argued, an ultimate necessary starting point to created effects. Now, if you want to show me how a series of effects can continue back in the past without a necessary starting point without leading to the absurdities that exist with that explanation, then please be my guest. The other option is that effects just popped into existence uncaused at some point in the past, which also is problematic.

Watch this whole documentary by Stephen Hawking. It'll answer all your questions:

 

The fact is that this series of videos didn't address the issue that I addressed in my post. He says that the universe materialized out of nothing (4:30), but are we to believe that the universe simply popped into existence uncaused? That is not a scientific explanation, that is a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved scientifically. If that is the case, then why don't we see other things simply materializing out of nothing? He also mentions luck repeatedly throughout this series. What is luck and why does he believe that it can produce anything? He is simply begging the question for materialism, but he is stretching credulity by asking us to believe that all of these fantastic events that laid the groundwork for our universe and the fine tuning that we see, could all come about through, as he calls it, "cosmic luck" or "good luck."

 

I don't argue that God exists outside the laws of logic, rather as I mentioned, I argue that God is the grounding for the existence of logic. However, I still haven't seen you show me an example of someone who argues that God exists outside the laws of logic. I would be interested in knowing to whom you are referring. The quote that you provided does not give evidence to that effect. In fact, that quote is logically consistent. So again, please let me know who holds the view that God exists outside of logic.

 

LNC

 

If you don't understand basic Christian apologetics 101, that's your problem, not mine. Go read about these arguments on your own and do your own homework because I'm not going to do it for you. I'm not going to explain Christian apologetics to someone who's already a Christian. That would be like the biggest waste of time.

 

 

You are now simply avoiding answering the question and backing up your claim You can't name one name, so until you prove otherwise, I will assume that you have no evidence to back up your claim.

 

LNC

[LNC]

God is by definition an uncreated self-existent being. He had no beginning and has no end. He is a necessary being and the author of a contingent universe, of which we are a part. Contingency requires a beginning, while a necessary being does not. The universe is made up of matter, which is not eternal according to the laws of physics. God is immaterial and therefore not bound by the laws of physics.

 

Well I guess I should be asking something to the effect of did god evolve, if he is the source of all minds, how did he become a mind. I would disagree slightly with your statement about being bound by the laws of physics, say a deist god would not be bound by physics ever because that being would never interfere, but if your in space time etc, your in space time etc, you can't be both something and not something(like non physical and physical) at the same time, you either one of the other.

 

Another definition of God is that he is immutable or unchangeable, so with that in mind, I would answer that God did not evolve. I would argue that he has always been a mind and a personal being. Since God existed when the physical world did not, then he was not bound by the laws of physics and since he is immaterial, he would not be bound by them now that they exist. I don't see why God, should he interact in the world, would have to be bound by the laws of physics. That doesn't necessarily follow, so you would have to give more reasons as to why you believe that would be the case. God is not physical and therefore not located anywhere. You can't point to a place on a map and locate God.

 

Again, since logic is a part of God's nature, then he abides by his nature. It is not something external to God by which he is bound, but something that is essential to him and therefore acts according to that nature. The reason that there can be objective logical or moral standards is because God is eternal and transcendent to us and those are aspects of his nature that have been revealed to us.

 

What you are, in essence, referring to is a type of Euthyphro argument where God is either bound by some eternal standard that is external to him or is completely arbitrary in his pronouncements; however, that is resolved by the fact that these attributes are part of God's eternal nature and that God acts according to his eternal nature. it is neither separate from him or arbitrary.

 

Your right I am making a euthyphro logic type arguement. And similar to the rebuttal about the moral argument version, is what god nature is logical because he says it is, or because it is regardless of him.

 

I think I have addressed that in saying that logic is intrinsic to God's nature and that nature is unchanging and transcendent. Logic is not something external to God in the sense that it could exist apart from him, nor is it arbitrary in the sense that whatever God would arbitrarily call logical would be logical. Logic flows from God's unchanging nature and is neither independent of him, nor arbitrarily decided by him.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Most more advance apologetics I am aware of limit god's being all perfect qualities to get out of logic problems like the problem of evil. And as far as I am aware, most apologists say that god is constrained by logic because he can't contradict himself.

 

Apologists don't define God, that was done by philosophers long before. God is bound by his nature as we are bound by ours. Logic is intrinsic to God's nature, so therefore, God is bound by that part of his nature. However, logic isn't something that exists apart from God according to which he is bound. If God didn't exist, neither would logic.

[LNC]

Sorry, but what you have provided is not an argument for fine-tuning. When you actually look at the universe as a whole, we do not live in an extremely hospitable part of the universe or even our own galaxy. The inhospitable planet that we live on is evidence of this. In 2004 a tsunami killed around 300,000 people. This is not a hospitable planet. It is hospitable, enough, at this present time (ignoring previous epochs) for the evolution of life to flourish. You would think if it were fine-tuned, there would be less natural disasters?

 

You are placing intention behind something that does not naturally have intention, by comparing cars and drugs you place intentions in the same region as the natural and try to draw comparisons between the two. It is the same as saying that a tree's branch fell on my head while I was walking down the sidewalk. Trees, provide oxygen, shade and potentially fruit but they can also be abused and branches can fall on my head. Why am I placing intention behind the falling branch?

 

The Fine-Tuned argument does not offer any prediction or theory on how or why we find ourselves hurtling around space on our little blue planet, because it does not address what method this God used in fine-tuning this universe. What is the modus operandi of God? If we the universe is fine-tuned for us, why aren't we ourselves more fine-tuned? The way in which we came about, if there was a God present calls in to question the methods of this God. If he truly were fine-tuning the universe, you would think the early evolution of man would have been a little more easy and less precarious.

 

Again, I return to it's a point of view. The fine-tuned argument is based on an egocentric and narcissistic world-view that with a gripping fury refuses to let go of the thinking that we are the focal point of the universe.

 

 

Josh,

 

Are you familiar with terms like "circumstellar habitable zone," or "galactic habitable zone," or the "Goldilocks zone"? Maybe you could start with this Wikipedia article to get up to speed. You cannot look at events that are caused by seismic events on our earth and then by that prove that we live in an inhospitable part of the galaxy or universe. You are mixing concepts and coming to false conclusions. In fact, if it weren't for seismic activity on our planet, life would not survive very long. It is through this type of activity that the surface of the earth recycles itself. Nutrients are brought to the surface and other soil is moved below. The fact that we build houses or vacation in areas that are prone to these activities is not an indication that they are evil, but that we can be foolish. Here is another problem, the most beautiful places on this planet tend to be the most dangerous places. This is the reason that people climb Mount Everest every year, and many die trying. They do it knowing the risks, but do it anyway.

 

Cars don't have intentions, it is the people who operate them that do. However, cars, as well designed as they are, can be very dangerous. The universe, as well designed as it is, as well as our planet, are very beautiful and very dangerous as well. We happen to live in a neighborhood of the galaxy and universe that is not as dangerous or as hostile as the rest of it is.

 

I'm sorry, but you are not arguing against me by arguing against the fine tuning of the universe, you are arguing against scientific understanding. Yes, we can make predictions based upon our understanding of the fine tuning of the universe. That is why we can understand the behavior of super novae, black holes and other phenomena. In fact, here is an article and a YouTube video that will get you up to speed on this issue.

 

http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvD..56.4604T

(Roger Penrose, who collaborated with Stephen Hawking)

 

BTW, these people argue for fine-tuning completely apart from the source of it. I don't know that Penrose is even a theist. However, he is not the only physicist who argues for fine tuning. You may not believe that it exists, but you now have to explain away the scientific understanding that we have that gives evidence for it.

 

LNC

[BrotherJosh]

[quote name=LNC' timestamp='1294634497' post='637663'

Are you familiar with terms like "circumstellar habitable zone," or "galactic habitable zone," or the "Goldilocks zone"? Maybe you could start with this Wikipedia article to get up to speed.

Yes, I am familiar with these terms LNC, thank you for bring me up to speed with your Wikipedia article...

 

You cannot look at events that are caused by seismic events on our earth and then by that prove that we live in an inhospitable part of the galaxy or universe. You are mixing concepts and coming to false conclusions. In fact, if it weren't for seismic activity on our planet, life would not survive very long. It is through this type of activity that the surface of the earth recycles itself. Nutrients are brought to the surface and other soil is moved below. The fact that we build houses or vacation in areas that are prone to these activities is not an indication that they are evil, but that we can be foolish. Here is another problem, the most beautiful places on this planet tend to be the most dangerous places. This is the reason that people climb Mount Everest every year, and many die trying. They do it knowing the risks, but do it anyway.

 

You are specifically arguing for a fine-tuned hospitable planet, the question you must ask, is why isn't this planet, and the surrounding universe itself, not hospitable in and of itself. You are still looking at the Earth as it is now. Not how it was, and not how it may end up. You are essentially arguing from a Rare Earth point of view, that only the type of life that we find specifically on this planet is the only type of life that will be found on other planets. We again return to the ever shrinking God of the Gaps argument. You are arguing, that this planet and surrounding universe is specifically fine-tuned by an uncaused cause who through mysterious methods gave rise to the universe as we now see it. In no way is this making an argument, prediction or providing a testable theory other than saying it was an uncaused cause. Seismic activity is indeed a natural process wherein a sudden release of energy of the Earth's crust results in seismic waves. I do not refer to this as "evil." The problem is, if you have an uncaused cause who caused this planet, the problem is that this uncaused cause did not fine tune this planet, or this universe to be the best hospitable environment as you apparently see it. Natural disasters must be accounted for, though they at times help or helped give rise to the life as we now see it on this planet, an omnipotent, omniscient god could conceivably imagine a far far more fine-tuned universe for life to flourish in.

 

Cars don't have intentions, it is the people who operate them that do. However, cars, as well designed as they are, can be very dangerous. The universe, as well designed as it is, as well as our planet, are very beautiful and very dangerous as well.

 

Your uncaused cause is a pretty shitty designer if his desire was for the best possible environment for us to live in then. You are saying this uncaused cause deigned to place his loved subjects in a room, filled with dangerous objects, knives, guns, natural disasters and countless other dangers? If you were an omnipotent, omniscient parent, would you create and place your child in a room such as this?

 

I'm sorry, but you are not arguing against me by arguing against the fine tuning of the universe, you are arguing against scientific understanding. Yes, we can make predictions based upon our understanding of the fine tuning of the universe. That is why we can understand the behavior of super novae, black holes and other phenomena. In fact, here is an article and a YouTube video that will get you up to speed on this issue.

 

http://www.adsabs.ha...PhRvD..56.4604T

(Roger Penrose, who collaborated with Stephen Hawking)

 

 

I'm sorry but I am not arguing against you in reference to a Circumstellar Hospitable Zone or the Goldilock's zone (which themselves come with inherent problems...) but rather the fact that you seek refuge in the God of the Gaps. Essentially, what we have here is you finding that we live in a semi-hospitable planet, wherein, life through evolutionary processes gives rise to the various inhabitants of this planet. The problem you have is that by arguing for an uncaused cause you begin to accrue baggage with this uncaused cause. Various logical inconsistencies and methods of operation spring to mind when you cite an uncaused cause who deliberately sets about in fine tuning the universe we find ourselves in. The physical constants we find ourselves with are a brute fact. The physical constants may be argued to be "one of a kind" despite the fact that any physical constants we are living in would in fact be one of a kind. By relying on an uncaused cause to be the theory of everything various explanations for the uncaused cause must be put forth. There are various explanations for the origin of the universe. It seems better to me for people to continue to seek a natural explanation for the origins of our universe and not an uncaused cause who through mysterious and magical means gave rise to our universe.

 

So either the physical constants are either a brute fact, or we must cite an uncaused caused who comes with various logical inconsistencies, lack of scientific evidence and an overall lack of interest in the inhabitants of this planet. If this uncaused cause did indeed give rise to the universe then how do we make the leap to Yahweh? Why not Ba'al, or Allah, or Krishna, or Mahadeva, or Brahaman, or any other god out there?

 

Hey look!! I have a YouTube video as well!

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_bGx3UB-Slg (Roger Penrose is in here too...)

 

 

The Universe is a mystery and continues in many ways to be a mystery. To reach back to a Bronze Age conception of a deity is to bolt on an ancient supernatural conception and try to shoehorn it into our current, yet growing, understand of the universe around us.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

I would argue that he has always been a mind and a personal being. Since God existed when the physical world did not, then he was not bound by the laws of physics and since he is immaterial, he would not be bound by them now that they exist. I don't see why God, should he interact in the world, would have to be bound by the laws of physics. That doesn't necessarily follow, so you would have to give more reasons as to why you believe that would be the case. God is not physical and therefore not located anywhere. You can't point to a place on a map and locate God.

 

Maybe I misunderstand how Jesus could be both god and man at the same time, or how the holy spirit operates within a believer, but that would be where god would be if you want to say that is where god is. I am saying you can only be one or the other, finite infinite, black white, physical non physical, you can't be both something you are and something your not. Seems like to me things like jesus or the holy spirit being in all believers would be therefore a contradiction, unless there is some theological explanation I am not aware of. Of course one could change form, but one can't be a contradiction.

 

 

I think I have addressed that in saying that logic is intrinsic to God's nature and that nature is unchanging and transcendent. Logic is not something external to God in the sense that it could exist apart from him, nor is it arbitrary in the sense that whatever God would arbitrarily call logical would be logical. Logic flows from God's unchanging nature and is neither independent of him, nor arbitrarily decided by him.

 

LNC

So your saying he can't make a stone he can't lift essentially, outside of that, your statement doesn't really say much. So is god logic, or logic god, because if it doesn't exist apart of him, it is contingent on him. Now I have a question for you, is he not powerful enough to change his own nature? And a another question, what says he is logical, himself, or something outside himself. How do we have a absolute then if its depends on somebodies thought. This is considering we don't know anything about god outside what we are told. He could potentially say for example I am good, because we only get his interpretation of himself and his nature. And with being god, anything really goes practically. Same goes with being logical.

 

I am wondering what you mean by this "Logic is not something external to God in the sense that it could exist apart from him"

[Guest Valk0010]

Most more advance apologetics I am aware of limit god's being all perfect qualities to get out of logic problems like the problem of evil. And as far as I am aware, most apologists say that god is constrained by logic because he can't contradict himself.

 

God is bound by his nature as we are bound by ours. Logic is intrinsic to God's nature, so therefore, God is bound by that part of his nature. However, logic isn't something that exists apart from God according to which he is bound. If God didn't exist, neither would logic.

We are saying similar things, except we think its has different roots, god is bound by the exterior according to my understanding and god is bound by his nature according to yours, it comes out the same way in practice, like in saying he can't contradict himself.

 

Question, how do you know god is logical, did he tell you. If logic is just something that is part of god, how can't we know anything. He tells us what his nature is, we don't tell him, right?

[Guest Valk0010]

So god is somehow a more scientific explainable as the "metaphysical assumption" you claim hawking makes. God isn't measurable or even explainable by scientific means, the only way to say anything then about this explanation is through divine revelation, which even if you prove god exists, or even a supernatural thingy, you can't prove your exact divine revelation, you just proved god.

 

Ever heard a christian say, the devil started other religions like hinduism. Well if you prove a supernatural independent of appealing to religion your just left with that(ohh the devil did it) sort of thing and got nothing.

 

As far as I know, your definition of god comes from divine revelation, you got to do better then that.

 

And more to the point, if you proved a supernatural thing exists independent of religion, some could say, ohh trick the 12 apostles into thinking they saw jesus when he died, and say wants us to follow a different path, whatever that may be. In fact a muslim would probably say such a thing. This if of course if you use things like say the kalam arguement just as a example, to prove a god or a supernatural exists.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

You are now simply avoiding answering the question and backing up your claim You can't name one name, so until you prove otherwise, I will assume that you have no evidence to back up your claim.

 

LNC

I'm avoiding answering your question because I don't waste my time explaining basic theology to moronic Christians who should already know this. Come back to this thread when the wizard gives you a brain because until then I'm not debating anything with you. I'll be perfectly blunt that I find debating with you to be annoying and frustrating and I'm not going to debate with you further until you get your act together and stop changing arguments as you go along. I'm tired of playing your little word games with you.

 

So god is somehow a more scientific explainable as the "metaphysical assumption" you claim hawking makes. God isn't measurable or even explainable by scientific means, the only way to say anything then about this explanation is through divine revelation, which even if you prove god exists, or even a supernatural thingy, you can't prove your exact divine revelation, you just proved god.

Apparently LNC thinks he knows more about science than Stephen Hawking does which is just laughable.

[LNC]

I disagree with "fine tuned universe" arguments. These are no different than saying a puddle is fine tuned to contain water. Changing variables like the local topography just moves where puddles can form. In fact, it is the waters ability to conform that does the hard work, just as evolution does the hard work of making life conform to the present conditions. Even the concept of "Goldilocks zones" is a bit misleading. If Europa contains as much liquid water as astrophysisists suspect, that places more liquid water OUTSIDE the "goldilocks zone" than within it inside our solar system. Even within our solar system Mars and Venus fall within the "Goldilocks zone". It is the density of their respective atmosheres than prohibits liquid water, not their proximity to the sun. If you could tampering with cosmic variables its possible that one of those could be a haven for life and not Earth. Even altering variables like the fundamental forces of gravity and nuclear foces would alter star and planet formations, but wouldn't neccesarily stop it. It might take 100 billion years to form an Earth like planet or only a billion years. It only shifts the window. And this isn't even looking at the prospect of life outside of Earth like conditions. We haven't found any yet but this may be a result of our limited ability to explore (no star ships yet). Ther may be more planets than stars in the universe. The entire spectrum exist, from most hospitable to least hospitable planets. Earth happens to be on the hospitable end of that spectrum. If the universe is so finely tuned then why aren't all of them hospitable? There is a statiscally probability of Earth like planets existing, 1 in x-billion. There are billions of planets. It is a virtual certainty that 'Earths' will exist due solely to natural forces.

 

The "fine tuned universe" argument is a logical fallacy, they are an appeal to final consequences.

Stucker,

 

There are a number of misconceptions and misrepresentations in your post. First, the example of the puddle is misleading as the material for the puddle already exists, what you are referring to is simply the arrangement of that matter. With regards to fine tuning, we are discussing more than the mere arrangement of matter, we are discussing the laws that affect how matter even comes together and stays together, among other parameters. In other words, if the fine tuning were slightly different we would either have no matter or matter would be collapsed back into itself.

 

Regarding the water on Europa or any other planet. You are mistaken in assuming that more water is better. Actually, our planet is water-poor compared to many in the universe, but that is a good thing, otherwise, we would not have land masses on which for higher life forms to exist. The mistake is to think that water is the "key" factor, rather than only one of the necessary factors. Earth is the only planet that we know of in which water exists in the three forms (liquid, solid, and vapor) and each is necessary.

 

You haven't addressed the issue of why our universe is finely tuned, however. And, to ask why all the planets are not hospitable to life does not address that issue. It is really an irrelevant question to the issue. Your statistics are uniformed either as they don't take into consideration the necessary background information. You cannot simply say that if there are x number of planets then the probability of y number of them being life permitting is z. You have to take into consideration other factors such as the necessary factors for a life-permitting planet and whether those factors actually exist outside of our own. Here are some of the characteristics necessary to support life. It's not impossible that life could exist on another planet; however, the probability seems extremely low.

 

You will have to explain in more detail how you see the fine tuning argument to be fallacious as it does not formally appeal to final consequences. It seeks a plausible explanation for the conditions within our universe that support life. The three possible factors are law, chance, and design. Hawking appeals to chance; however, when you consider factors like the cosmological constant that are fine tuned to 1 in 10(123) or special low entropy which is tuned to 1 in 10 in 10 to the 123, then you have some explaining to do. These factors cannot be explained by law either as they could have been otherwise. So, I believe you are misinformed about the fine tuning argument, it is not logically fallacious and, to my knowledge, your objection has not been asserted against it in debate.

 

LNC

[Neon Genesis]

LNC's arguments can be summed up as follows: You're misrepresenting this view! blahblahblahblahblah etc Goddidit! blahblahblahblahblah etc God doesn't need to have been created because I say so! blahblahblahblahblah

[Sybaris]

 

 

Actually, our planet is water-poor compared to many in the universe, but that is a good thing, otherwise, we would not have land masses on which for higher life forms to exist. The mistake is to think that water is the "key" factor, rather than only one of the necessary factors. Earth is the only planet that we know of in which water exists in the three forms (liquid, solid, and vapor) and each is necessary.

 

 

 

Can you post a link to the survey of the universe you are referencing?

 

Also, since your god can do anything, couldn't it create an aquatic Adam and Eve on another planet?

 

Have you seen The Abyss?

 

Where do you get your definition of god?

[LNC]

You don't necessarily need to convince me that the universe is fine tuned to contain life, but I do not have a really good feel for just how well we "hit the jackpot," cosmologically speaking. Why do the universal constants in our universe have the values they do? What about multiverses? How many "just right" universes can be conceived? One? A finite number? An infinite number? How many could host some form of life for which its universe is fine tuned, but which would not support human life? I hope we learn more about these things. I have not read Cosmic Jackpot, but I think I'll put it on my list if I can find enough time.

 

I think you would enjoy Cosmic Jackpot. Davies, in the end, advocates for a multiverse. Of course there are different levels of multiverse theory. I think that a level one multiverse is without question (that more of our universe exists than we can see on our cosmological horizon). I am skeptical of any level beyond that at this point as I don't think we have evidence to support these levels. I don't even think that the scientists are agreed on this either as there are many different and conflicting theories as to what is out there. I am agnostic on the issue at this point, but still verging on skepticism.

 

LNC