Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Newbie]

The fine-tuning argument totally doesn't make sense to me any more. When I was a believer, a big source of my conviction was the finely-tuned universe argument. You know, the idea that if universal constants such as the ratio between weak force and the gravitational force were even a little bit different, life could not exist, etc.

This seemed totally reasonable to me until I thought about it from another point of view: suppose the constants had been different. Then there would be no things we could recognize as atoms, stars, etc. Instead, there would be something else. Maybe complexity and consciousness could arise from that something-else and maybe not, but if it did, then would it not ask itself, "how can we explain such a finely-tuned universe?"

The point is, of COURSE the universe seems finely-tuned for human life. Human life arose in the context of this universe, not some other one. This universe is equally finely-tuned for quadrillions of miles of matter-less void to exist. But I no longer see any need for a conscious creator to explain it all.

[jimwalton]

I think we all pretty much recognize that regardless of what COULD have happened (which cannot be known), a number of the basic physical constants (the velocity of light, the strength of the gravitational force, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the expansion rate of the universe, as well as innumerable other features) must fall within extremely narrow limits for intelligent life of the sort we have here to have developed. How does that supply evidence of God, you are asking. For one, if there were a creator to all of this, we would expect orderly, complex, balanced life in many forms coexisting with balanced matter, enabling not only life but its vigor. If the universe came about by chance, totally dependent on randomness, the odds of the fine-tuned universe we see before us is much less. The odds, frankly, are more than staggering.

But many argue, well, if it was chance, it obviously worked because here we are! Of course that could be true, but how does that disprove that the universe is indeed fine-tuned, or that it makes better sense to postulate a Designer than a chance occurrence. If we have two choices: (1) the well-designed universe came to be at the hand of a powerful and intelligent designer, or (2) the well-designed universe just happened by a chance process—Granted, maybe things could have turned up completely different, as you postulate, but how is that relevant? The indisputable truth is that they have turned up the way they are, so we are left to reason why. That it has done so is much more likely on theism than on chance.

According to Plantinga, the argument of design may be stated as follows:

- Some natural systems (e.g., the human eye) are mechanically ordered (i.e., they exhibit the same sort of order as watches and other machines produced by human beings).
- Intelligent design is a very good explanation of mechanical order.
- No other explanation (or no equally good explanation) of mechanical order is available.
- Every instance of mechanical order has an explanation.
- Some natural systems were (probably) designed.

So, let's talk some more. What doesn't make sense to you?

[Blind Didymus]

The thing that frustrates me most about this argument, cogent as it is, is that if we can't rule out the possibility that it could have happened by chance (however staggering the odds) we have no fool-proof argument.

If the odds are overwhelmingly against a certain hand of cards, but here we have them in our hand - we can't argue that this hand must must have been cheated just because it's so unlikely. That is, the incredible odds of something happening just a certain way by chance never prove intentionality.

[jimwalton]

You're right, of course, that it's not a fool-proof argument. There is no fool-proof argument when it comes to cosmology. The point is that the argument is cogent, and to many the theistic argument has more to speak in its favor than a naturalistic one.

Supposing we are playing cards, and I my hand has a royal flush. You'd be amazed, and we'd all laugh. if in the next hand I had a royal flush again, now you'd look at me with suspicion. Of course you couldn't rule out the possibility that it happened by chance, but you'd be quite suspicious. If I did it a THIRD time, you'd a convinced at that point that I was cheating. Nobody but NOBODY can turn up a royal flush by pure chance three times in a row. You would assume, quite understandably, that some "intelligence" (indubitably) had "designed" the hands to the necessary factor to create a winner. Though you still could not prove accident or design, I know what you be thinking: That guy's a stinking cheater. It certainly doesn't prove intentionality, but that's where the odds lie, for sure.

That's all I was getting at, because the original post was saying it didn't make sense.

[Random Word]

I try to think of it from another point of view. If the universe is the way it is due to random chance, then that would imply that it could have been otherwise. So let's imagine that it WAS otherwise.

In a differently-tuned universe, everything would take a different format. It's hard to imagine what this would look like, but whatever it looks like, life as we know it probably wouldn't exist.

Instead, something else would exist (assuming "exist" is a good word to use). And I'll bet you 10 bucks that whatever that "something else" is, it would eventually sit around and say, "Wow, isn't it amazing that the universe is so finely-tuned for US!"

It reminds me a little of a common misconception about probability. If you ask a class of freshmen stats students how likely it is that two people in a class of 30 have the same birthday, they'll usually say it's like 1 in 100 or something like that. But it's not! It's actually greater than 1 in 2. The reason is because they confuse the probability that ANY TWO PEOPLE share a birthday with the probability that someone shares THEIR birthday.

For any two people to share a birthday, you start with the first person and compute the probability that any other person shares their birthday. For the first pair, it's a 1/365 chance—very improbable. But assuming they didn't share a birthday, the next two people have a 1/364 chance. Then 1/363 and so-on. If you sum all those probabilities, you get (1/365) + (1/364) + (1/363)...etc. and pretty soon you're up to about .5

People often confuse this with the probability that someone shares THEIR birthday, which indeed is improbable. But I think we're committing essentially the same error when we imagine the probability of the universe giving rise to us. It HAD to give rise to something—and we happen to be it. If you take into account all of the possibilities (whatever they were), it had to be one of them, so it's not so astounding that it happened to be us.

[jimwalton]

Your response is perfectly logical, of course. But still how is it an objection to the fine-tuning argument? We have the values we have, and that warrants an explanation. Even if we had totally different values, and therefore a different result, whatever the "something else" was that was intelligent enough to ponder the perplexity would attempt an explanation, since the evidence warranted it. It's no explanation to say that because they are fined tuned and we are observing and explaining, it's not legitimate, because if it were a different set of variables that were fine-tuned, they wouldn't need to be explained. That doesn't make sense to me. Fine tuning in a cosmic and biological system resulting in intelligence warrants explanation.

Supposing that a different universe evolved and it is magnificently fine-tuned, as is ours. Let's say that, because it happened in a universe besides ours (with our set of variables), that the probability of such a thing happening by chance was possibly even equal to the probability that fine tuning was the result of an intelligence designing the system. But how does that change the probability that OUR universe, the way it is, is fine tuned? As you say, a universe, given enough time and enough variables, had to come up with something (maybe, but for the sake of argument, we'll go with it). And we happen to be it! That really has no bearing on the probability (on atheism) that THIS universe is fine-tuned for life; that probability remains very low. It is still true that the thought that intelligence has given rise to the universe we see makes more sense than that random chance has given rise to the universe we see.

[Random Word]

Yeah, I don't see it that way. I think some of my other posts on this thread answer your objections in more detail, but the summary is this: you're asking "why this way?" and I'm asking "why not this way?" It's almost as if you're shooting an arrow and then drawing a circle around it and calling it a bulls-eye.

[jimwalton]

Actually, I'm not asking "why this way" in contrast to "why not?" I'm saying that it doesn't matter. Any fine-tuned system would beg the question. Nor am I guilty of shooting an arrow and then drawing a circle around it and calling it a bulls eye. I'm saying that any fine-tuned system that results in intelligence is going to elicit fair inquiry. And the course of that fair inquiry is going to pass through the discussion that a system showing characteristics of design points to the possibility of a designer.

[Random Word]

I'm just not sure what you mean by "any system" -- do you mean like any system within the universe that contains intelligence? Do you mean "any universe" that contains intelligence? How many such systems have we come across that we've had to wonder about? To my knowledge, it's just this system, just this universe. Any other system or universe is hypothetical.

We know that our corner of this universe is this way. We don't know what the other possibilities are, if there even are any other possibilities. Our reality is this way, and we ask "why?" But "why" implies a counterfactual, and the answer to the "why" question depends more on how we set up the counterfactual than it does on anything we actually know about this universe.

[jimwalton]

What I meant by "any system" is the hypotheticals that are lined up in array to counter the fine-tuning argument:
- What if the universe had evolved in a different way than what it did?
- What if there are other universes (that we are one of many multiverses), and their "systems" are different from ours?

I agree that we know of no other "systems," but those are used in argumentation and, as you say, they are definitely hypothetical.

It is true that the answer to "why" depends on the set-up, but that doesn't necessarily mean that asking "why" betrays a weakness in either the logic or the conclusion derived.