Is The Universe Finetuned For Life Or Is God Omnipotent?

[mymistake]

 

Badger, would you please watch this for a few minutes and make a comment? I would appreciate your viewpoint.

 

He is not really arguing anything as much as just making parody. Well no Christian would deny that, in its present conditions, the universe is flawed in many ways. He is not debunking the fine-tuning argument, however. The argument basically says that the manifold complexity we discern in our universe cannot be (or is more unlikely) explained by random, unordered events. Degrasse does not touch this issue at all, as you can see.

 

 

Now this is an epic fail.  In the vid he focused more on intelligent design but he did touch upon fine tuning as well.  In both cases theology apologists ignore the bad.  They point at what agrees with their position and dismiss the rest.  While ID and the fine tune argument are both quite funny there was no parody in that vid.  NDT simply ran through a few of the many items that conflict with intelligent design.

 

I go a step further.  I say that intelligent design does not exist - anywhere.  Cars, airplanes, ships, watches and all other products of human technology are not intelligently designed.  In fact nothing is.  These items evolve.  The natural selection is the same for biological evolution and technology.  In place of mutation technology relies on the randomness of human trial and error.

[roadrunner]

 

Badger, would you please watch this for a few minutes and make a comment? I would appreciate your viewpoint.

 

He is not really arguing anything as much as just making parody. Well no Christian would deny that, in its present conditions, the universe is flawed in many ways. He is not debunking the fine-tuning argument, however. The argument basically says that the manifold complexity we discern in our universe cannot be (or is more unlikely) explained by random, unordered events. Degrasse does not touch this issue at all, as you can see.

 

I got into a discussion yesterday about this. You are arguing that because non-creationist cannot account for what appears to be fine tuning regardless of the flaws there is no better explanation than a fine tuning (with some collateral damage). As long as you can acknowledge that the universe is not perfect you are on the right track. Please look at "argument from complexity" and explain how this is not what your assertion is.

[Badger]

Nope.  It's the natrual conclusion of your position.  If God intended for things to happen the way they did then God is evil.

 

Classical straw man. (Not to mention red herring.) I never said anything like that. I have not even claimed that God created anything!

 

You use circular reasoning.  CGI artists have reached a point where they can create nearly anything people can imagine.  CGI artists do not fine tune.  Power is the opposite of fine tuning.  You claim epic failure but so far can demonstrate nothing.  If God was all powerful then He could have forgiven mankind anyway He wanted to forgive them and sending God the Son to be a sacrifice was just empty motions God choose to go through.  An all powerful God would not be constrained to forgive in only that one silly way.  Now you have three examples.

 

Most of this is completely irrelevant for the topic under discussion. Now if God is omnipotent, he can create exactly what he intends (as DarkAntics himself admits). Are you willing to argue that God did not intended to create this specific universe? I look forward to hear what proofs you have for this! DarkAntics did not give any.

[Badger]

It entails that there are a specific set of details that God had to include, hence, limits on his abilities to create. So yes, actually, it actually is a good arguement and is an epic win.

 

O.K. Can you prove this?

 

That is what fine tune means.  If CGI artists had to fine tune the films they make then they would have to fill their films with 6,837,480,000,000,000 minutes of empty space to get the two hours they want.  They don't do that.  They put what they want in every frame of the film.  Our universe on the other hand is mostly empty space with the occasional singularity or fusion furnace.  Then one slightly oversized warm star has a rock.  On that rock is a desert.  In that desert is a pool.  In that pool lives a type of fish that lives nowhere else.  If it was intentional then that would have been fine tuning.  The universe is fine tuned for the Devil's Hole Pupfish. 

 

No, no, no. Can you prove that God had (was forced?) to include this specific set of details instead of some other details? You see, you are asserting that it is not possible that the universe is fine-tuned and God was free to create whatever he intended (this is what the little word "entail" in your post means). I would like to hear how you defend this.

[raoul]

 

It's not a matter of any of us 'proving' anything as much as it is the way theists evade the REAL matter regarding 'proof'. IE: In order to prove an extraordinary event or being one must present extraordinary facts or at least premises for support.

 

You are red herring this thread and fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

 

Translation: You are unable to respond cohesively to my challenge regarding evidence requirements. No problem, I'm used to evasive tactics from the people in the xtian cult. Lane Craig is notorious for shifting the discussion. In addition - I did not shift anything. I merely stated what should be the obvious regarding burdon of proof. You are the one doing the shifting - a typical xtian dodge btw. I know because I used to resort to the same tricks. Lastly, the red herring tag can be construed as ad hominem but I forgive you. LOL I also notice you used it on someone else as well. Please try to be more original in the future okay?

[mymistake]

 

Nope.  It's the natrual conclusion of your position.  If God intended for things to happen the way they did then God is evil.

 

Classical straw man. (Not to mention red herring.) I never said anything like that. I have not even claimed that God created anything!

 

Why do you keep misusing these phrases?  See post #6.  Stop tossing around fallacy names as if they are buzzwords.

 

 

 

 

You use circular reasoning.  CGI artists have reached a point where they can create nearly anything people can imagine.  CGI artists do not fine tune.  Power is the opposite of fine tuning.  You claim epic failure but so far can demonstrate nothing.  If God was all powerful then He could have forgiven mankind anyway He wanted to forgive them and sending God the Son to be a sacrifice was just empty motions God choose to go through.  An all powerful God would not be constrained to forgive in only that one silly way.  Now you have three examples.

 

Most of this is completely irrelevant for the topic under discussion. Now if God is omnipotent, he can create exactly what he intends (as DarkAntics himself admits). Are you willing to argue that God did not intended to create this specific universe? I look forward to hear what proofs you have for this! DarkAntics did not give any.

 

 

 

My position is that God didn't intend anything because, among other things, you have to be real in order to have intention.  We have no reason to believe God is real.  2525 nailed it.  He did demonstrate that fine tuning and power are opposites.  I have followed up with other examples that show the same thing - CGI animators and the Free Gift of Salvation from the Bible.  Instead of addressing that you use buzzwords and claim irrelevance.  We can't have a discussion if you won't do your part. 

 

Where is this God?  You show that this God is evil by doing what he wants.  Or you show that this God isn't evil but only powerless and thus fine tunes.  I don't care which position you take but you need to do more than just toss out buzzwords.

[mymistake]

 

It entails that there are a specific set of details that God had to include, hence, limits on his abilities to create. So yes, actually, it actually is a good arguement and is an epic win.

 

O.K. Can you prove this?

 

That is what fine tune means.  If CGI artists had to fine tune the films they make then they would have to fill their films with 6,837,480,000,000,000 minutes of empty space to get the two hours they want.  They don't do that.  They put what they want in every frame of the film.  Our universe on the other hand is mostly empty space with the occasional singularity or fusion furnace.  Then one slightly oversized warm star has a rock.  On that rock is a desert.  In that desert is a pool.  In that pool lives a type of fish that lives nowhere else.  If it was intentional then that would have been fine tuning.  The universe is fine tuned for the Devil's Hole Pupfish. 

 

No, no, no. Can you prove that God had (was forced?) to include this specific set of details instead of some other details?

 

First you must enter God in evidence before we worry about proving details about God.   2525's position, and I agree with him, is that fine tuning and power are mutually exclusive.  If you have power then you do what you want.  If you don't have power then you fine tune.  Fine tuning is not possible with power because you can do whatever you want.  That is the meaning of these concepts.

 

 

You see, you are asserting that it is not possible that the universe is fine-tuned and God was free to create whatever he intended (this is what the little word "entail" in your post means). I would like to hear how you defend this.

 

 

You've seen it already.  Are you going to counter any of these points or do you prefer to leave them unchallenged?  An omnipotent God, by definition, could not have fine tuned.  A fine tuning creator, by definition, could not be omnipotent.  To take my eailer example of CGI artists if they were omnipotent they could take the ideas they animate and to anything they want with them.  They could turn reality into what they dream up for the film.  They have power to do what they want regarding images in movie frames.  Beyond that they are powerless.  So in that sense they do fine tune because what they create is only in the movie.

[midniterider]

 

 

This argument is epic fail. The (alleged) fact that the universe is fine-tuned does not entail that God lacked freedom and power to create exactly the kind of universe he intended.

It entails that there are a specific set of details that God had to include, hence, limits on his abilities to create. So yes, actually, it actually is a good arguement and is an epic win.

 

 

I actually agree with Badger here.  Fine tuned in this sense doesn't appear to limit god's power.  I would, however, dispute that the universe is fine tuned or even ideally suited for life, so there is no need to accept either premise posited by apologsts on the matter.  Evidence to the contrary abounds.  Life just happened to find a nook or a cranny to form in and then adapted to available conditions.  Even if the universe were teaming with life as some might predict, more than 99% of it is still unsuitable for and therefore absent of life.  This in no way indicates a tuning of any sort any more than the shape of a mud puddle makes it perfectly suited for the water that temporarily resides in it. The very idea of suitability is a red herring. 

 

 

If there was an almighty god he could just snap his fingers and poof, instant perfectly balanced world containing life. No fine tuning necessary. God wouldn't need to even think about it. Fine tuning is just an argument by Christians to try to influence people to believe in a god (and thus exert control over these people).

 

Too bad God hasn't stepped up to prove his existence (and take credit for creation). It seems to me that if the arrogant God of the bible were real he would be in everybody's face about the fact that he MADE EVERYTHING. As it is, only Christians seem to behave that way.

 

So maybe I woke up this morning and created the universe myself....or maybe it is a product of evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest (on a cosmological scale). :-)

[midniterider]

 

My position is that God didn't intend anything because, among other things, you have to be real in order to have intention.  We have no reason to believe God is real.  2525 nailed it.  He did demonstrate that fine tuning and power are opposites.  I have followed up with other examples that show the same thing - CGI animators and the Free Gift of Salvation from the Bible.  Instead of addressing that you use buzzwords and claim irrelevance.  We can't have a discussion if you won't do your part. 

 

Where is this God?  You show that this God is evil by doing what he wants.  Or you show that this God isn't evil but only powerless and thus fine tunes.  I don't care which position you take but you need to do more than just toss out buzzwords.

 

 

Yes, you have to be real to have intention. That is the bottom line on this thread. God has not been proven. We should start there before discussing God's  fine tuning. :-)

[bornagainathiest]

For those who are interested in the origins of the Fine-Tuned Universe Argument, please look here...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dicke

 

Specifically, this...

 

"Dicke (1970)  gave an interesting argument that the universe must have very nearly the critical density of matter needed to stop it expanding forever. Standard models of the universe pass through stages dominated by radiation, matter, curvature etc. Transitions between stages are very special cosmic times which a priori could differ by many orders of magnitude. Since there is a non-negligible amount of matter, either we are coincidentally living close to the transition to or from the matter-dominated stage, or we are in the middle of it; the latter is preferred since the coincidences are highly unlikely (an application of the Copernican principle). This implies a negligible curvature, so the universe must have almost critical density. This has been called the "Dicke coincidence" argument.  In fact it gives the wrong answer, since we seem to be living at the time of transition between the matter and dark energy stages. An anthropic explanation of the failure of Dicke's argument was given by Weinberg."

 

Dicke was wrong about the 'apparent coincidence' and 'highly unlikely' value of the universe's critical density.  There is no such coincidence.  Consequently, there is no Creator's hand needed to finely-tune the value of the critical density of the universe.  The subsequent discovery of dark energy showed this particular aspect of fine-tuning to be false.

 

Badger, this is one of the inherent problems when it comes to using today's scientific data to stack the odds higher and higher and claim, "Goddidit!"  Tomorrow's data may well overturn yesterday's. Since the very basis of science is one of self-correction, everything currently used to prove the 'Hand of God' may be gone tommorow.

 

The very first attempt to show something 'coincindental' and 'highly unlikely' (i.e., fine-tuned) about the universe - failed.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Badger]

Please look, this is what DarkAntics says (from 4:52 onward)

 

An omnipotent God can create exactly what he intends, because he has ultimate creative freedom. But according to the fine-tuning argument, God could only have made the universe in a very specific way; in other words, he had no creative freedom.

 

God could have created any possible world he wanted (or refrain from creating). He is an omnipotent being and can do exactly what he intends (within the limits of logic, of course). If, on the other hand, DarkAntics means that God created this universe in a very specific way for certain purposes, like making the evolution of life possible in this planet, then he is obviously right. It seems that in this respect God was limited. However, I do not see how this entails lack of power and freedom. (Perhaps he still had some freedom, however limited). You see, if I want to make pancakes, for example, my possible choices are limited. I have to make it in a very specific way if I want to achieve what I intend. But certainly I could choose not to do pancakes or do something else instead. Now to say that God is not omnipotent because he had to make the universe in a very specific way in order to achieve a specific conditions he intended (for making evolution possible, for example) without creating it in that specific way is as meaningless as to say that God is not omnipotent because he cannot draw a perfect circle without drawing a perfect circle. An omnipotent God can create exactly what he intends (within the limits of logic) and he intended to create this specific fine-tuned unviverse. I cannot explain this any better. Thank you.

[mymistake]

Please look, this is what DarkAntics says (from 4:52 onward)

 

An omnipotent God can create exactly what he intends, because he has ultimate creative freedom. But according to the fine-tuning argument, God could only have made the universe in a very specific way; in other words, he had no creative freedom.

 

God could have created any possible world he wanted (or refrain from creating). He is an omnipotent being and can do exactly what he intends (within the limits of logic, of course). If, on the other hand, DarkAntics means that God created this universe in a very specific way for certain purposes, like making the evolution of life possible in this planet, then he is obviously right.

 

He is saying that fine tuned is not compatible with an omnipotent creator.

 

It seems that in this respect God was limited. However, I do not see how this entails lack of power and freedom. (Perhaps he still had some freedom, however limited). You see, if I want to make pancakes, for example, my possible choices are limited. I have to make it in a very specific way if I want to achieve what I intend. But certainly I could choose not to do pancakes or do something else instead. Now to say that God is not omnipotent because he had to make the universe in a very specific way in order to achieve a specific conditions he intended (for making evolution possible, for example) without creating it in that specific way is as meaningless as to say that God is not omnipotent because he cannot draw a perfect circle without drawing a perfect circle. An omnipotent God can create exactly what he intends (within the limits of logic) and he intended to create this specific fine-tuned unviverse. I cannot explain this any better. Thank you.

 

If God had the power to make it any way he wanted to then this universe is not fine tuned.  The reason you have to make pancakes a specific way is because you are not omnipotent.  It has nothing to do with the intention of the creator and everything to do with the meaning of both fine tuned and all powerful.  If there are no parameters limiting your actions then you cannot pick the best path within those parameters because they do not exist.  The parameters have to be there limiting what you do in order for you to work within them.  If God is limited then God is not all powerful.  If God is not limited then God didn't fine tune anything to fit in those limits.  An all powerful baker could make the perfect pancake one day by blinking, if that is what he wanted.  Then the next day if he chose, he could make the exact same pancake by spiting.  Then the next day, if he so inclined, he could make it by saying a magic word.  Then the next day he could use a different magic word.  Then he could make the same pancake by wishing it into existence.  Then he could make the pancake by smacking two back holes together.  After that he could make the same pancake by singing a song.  There is no fine tuning of technique because there is no limitation.  If you try to make a pancake without heat you will fail.  You have limits so you must fine tune your technique within those limits.

[DrNo]

I actually agree with Badger here.  Fine tuned in this sense doesn't appear to limit god's power.  I would, however, dispute that the universe is fine tuned or even ideally suited for life, so there is no need to accept either premise posited by apologsts on the matter.  Evidence to the contrary abounds.  Life just happened to find a nook or a cranny to form in and then adapted to available conditions.  Even if the universe were teaming with life as some might predict, more than 99% of it is still unsuitable for and therefore absent of life.  This in no way indicates a tuning of any sort any more than the shape of a mud puddle makes it perfectly suited for the water that temporarily resides in it. The very idea of suitability is a red herring. 

 

I agree here. The stronger argument is (as Margee mentioned vIa Neil DeGrasse Tyson) that the universe is actually quite anethema to life. The fine tuning argument is like saying that the sidewalk crack that a flower is growing out of is "finely tuned" for the flower. It is not fine-tuned. It is against all odds that the flower is growing. There are also alternative theories to the "goddidit" hypothesis to explain the constants in our universe. The multiverse theory is an intriguing one. In any case, apologists make the classic "god of the gaps" error when using the "finely tuned" argument. Anything that science has not yet explained must have been god's handiwork. There is no "proof," just a possibility. But this argument gets weaker and weaker every time science discovers a natural explanation for a phenomenon. Where apologists and scientists differ is that scientists are typically not afraid to say "I don't know." Even when it turns out that a scientific theory is wrong, they will acknowledge this and begin working with the new information.

[Badger]

 

Please look, this is what DarkAntics says (from 4:52 onward)

 

An omnipotent God can create exactly what he intends, because he has ultimate creative freedom. But according to the fine-tuning argument, God could only have made the universe in a very specific way; in other words, he had no creative freedom.

 

God could have created any possible world he wanted (or refrain from creating). He is an omnipotent being and can do exactly what he intends (within the limits of logic, of course). If, on the other hand, DarkAntics means that God created this universe in a very specific way for certain purposes, like making the evolution of life possible in this planet, then he is obviously right.

 

 

He is saying that fine tuned is not compatible with an omnipotent creator.

 

It seems that in this respect God was limited. However, I do not see how this entails lack of power and freedom. (Perhaps he still had some freedom, however limited). You see, if I want to make pancakes, for example, my possible choices are limited. I have to make it in a very specific way if I want to achieve what I intend. But certainly I could choose not to do pancakes or do something else instead. Now to say that God is not omnipotent because he had to make the universe in a very specific way in order to achieve a specific conditions he intended (for making evolution possible, for example) without creating it in that specific way is as meaningless as to say that God is not omnipotent because he cannot draw a perfect circle without drawing a perfect circle. An omnipotent God can create exactly what he intends (within the limits of logic) and he intended to create this specific fine-tuned unviverse. I cannot explain this any better. Thank you.

 

If God had the power to make it any way he wanted to then this universe is not fine tuned.  The reason you have to make pancakes a specific way is because you are not omnipotent.  It has nothing to do with the intention of the creator and everything to do with the meaning of both fine tuned and all powerful.  If there are no parameters limiting your actions then you cannot pick the best path within those parameters because they do not exist.  The parameters have to be there limiting what you do in order for you to work within them.  If God is limited then God is not all powerful.  If God is not limited then God didn't fine tune anything to fit in those limits.  An all powerful baker could make the perfect pancake one day by blinking, if that is what he wanted.  Then the next day if he chose, he could make the exact same pancake by spiting.  Then the next day, if he so inclined, he could make it by saying a magic word.  Then the next day he could use a different magic word.  Then he could make the same pancake by wishing it into existence.  Then he could make the pancake by smacking two back holes together.  After that he could make the same pancake by singing a song.  There is no fine tuning of technique because there is no limitation.  If you try to make a pancake without heat you will fail.  You have limits so you must fine tune your technique within those limits.

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood me. An omnipotent God cannot create pancakes by following (say) ratatouille recipe. Then he would get ratatouille and not pancakes. To create pancakes that are not pancakes is not anything to do; it is contradiction. God cannot do anything logically contradictory.

[mymistake]

 

An omnipotent God cannot create pancakes by following (say) ratatouille recipe. Then he would get ratatouille and not pancakes. To create pancakes that are not pancakes is not anything to do; it is contradiction. God cannot do anything logically contradictory.

 

 

Making pancakes by following a ratatouille recipe is one of an infinite number of things that an omnipotent God is able to do.  Yes, an omnipotent God can do precisely that.  When Chuck Norris does anything logically contradictory then the rules of logic change to accommodate the new ruling.

[Badger]

 

 

An omnipotent God cannot create pancakes by following (say) ratatouille recipe. Then he would get ratatouille and not pancakes. To create pancakes that are not pancakes is not anything to do; it is contradiction. God cannot do anything logically contradictory.

 

 

Making pancakes by following a ratatouille recipe is one of an infinite number of things that an omnipotent God is able to do.  Yes, an omnipotent God can do precisely that.  When Chuck Norris does anything logically contradictory then the rules of logic change to accommodate the new ruling.

 

How can one do something that is nothing to do? Surely that is absurd. An incoherent act-description does not present even a possible candidate for action.

[Deva]

 

 

I think you misunderstood me. An omnipotent God cannot create pancakes by following (say) ratatouille recipe. Then he would get ratatouille and not pancakes. To create pancakes that are not pancakes is not anything to do; it is contradiction. God cannot do anything logically contradictory.

 

 

Like everything else "logic" is a product of the human mind. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, is not limited by the constraints of the human thought process.

 

It is nonsense to limit God in this way. (Everyone please note I am pretending to be a Christian here)

[Badger]

Like everything else "logic" is a product of the human mind.

 

I disagree.

[Deva]

Where does "logic" come from then, if it isn't from the human mind? Proof please.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

An omnipotent God cannot create pancakes by following (say) ratatouille recipe. Then he would get ratatouille and not pancakes. To create pancakes that are not pancakes is not anything to do; it is contradiction. God cannot do anything logically contradictory.

 

 

Making pancakes by following a ratatouille recipe is one of an infinite number of things that an omnipotent God is able to do.  Yes, an omnipotent God can do precisely that.  When Chuck Norris does anything logically contradictory then the rules of logic change to accommodate the new ruling.

 

How can one do something that is nothing to do? Surely that is absurd. An incoherent act-description does not present even a possible candidate for action.

 

 

Then we can agree that omnipotence is absurd.

[Badger]

Where does "logic" come from then, if it isn't from the human mind? Proof please.

 

Proof? You didn't give any proof either. But let me ask this: are logical contradictions possible?

[Badger]

 

 

 

 

An omnipotent God cannot create pancakes by following (say) ratatouille recipe. Then he would get ratatouille and not pancakes. To create pancakes that are not pancakes is not anything to do; it is contradiction. God cannot do anything logically contradictory.

 

 

Making pancakes by following a ratatouille recipe is one of an infinite number of things that an omnipotent God is able to do.  Yes, an omnipotent God can do precisely that.  When Chuck Norris does anything logically contradictory then the rules of logic change to accommodate the new ruling.

 

How can one do something that is nothing to do? Surely that is absurd. An incoherent act-description does not present even a possible candidate for action.

 

 

Then we can agree that omnipotence is absurd.

 

 

Your concept of omnipotence, certainly.

[mymistake]

 

Then we can agree that omnipotence is absurd.

 

Your concept of omnipotence, certainly.

 

 

Show me a concept of omnipotence that isn't absurd.

[Deva]

 

Where does "logic" come from then, if it isn't from the human mind? Proof please.

 

Proof? You didn't give any proof either. But let me ask this: are logical contradictions possible?

 

Of course, in the human mind.

[Badger]

Show me a concept of omnipotence that isn't absurd.

 

Maximal power. That is, power to do anything which does not yield logical contradiction.