the universe is designed

[harriet_tubman]

no need to write out some 400 word manifesto and dish out my arguments along the way.

let me first issue a disclaimer: i do not believe in the bible or the qur'an.  i believe species evolve but i believe that an immaterial intelligence is manipulating the dna to form more advanced and more complex species.  i believe the divine is not omnipotent.

let's start with the fine tuned universe according to stephen hawking (though it's possible hawking has said some quotes in favor of atheism) "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

Paul Davies has stated "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life.

the argument exposes atheist hypocrisy: they say why should we believe in something that has no evidence, so then we show them the evidence of fine-tuning, then they respond with their faith in the multiverse for which there is no evidence.  as richard dawkins said, (paraphrasing) how do you not know at the instance of the big bang 15 billion other universes were not created.

[JillSwift]

I don't see an argument there. Just two quotes and an assertion.

Addressing the assertion: That there is only a band of ranges that would have allowed for life in the universe (at least, life as we know it) suggests in itself nothing other than the universe exists within the constants of those bands.

Even if the chances are supremely tiny that a universe would form within those bands, that does not suggest evidence of agency. If this universe had not formed so life could exist, we would not be here to complain. To suggest otherwise is an argument from personal incredulity.


___EDIT_______
Edited above with the intent to improve clarity.

[i_am_i]

the argument exposes atheist hypocrisy

This statement exposes your true purpose for being on this forum.

[SSY]

JillSwift got it pretty spot on, the argument is not cut and dry as you present it.

The whole bulk of the argument is; the parameters are x y z values, if they were different, life would not have evolved, therefore, something must have tuned them to be the way they are, to get the desired result. Surely you can see the shaky nature of the second premise, and the huge non sequitur for the conclusion?

You accuse atheists of being hypocritical, for not believing in your god, but believing in their own theories (multiverse etc), while not having the faintest idea about what atheists believe, because every atheist believes something different, the only thing we share is not believing in a god. It is also laughable you present evidence of fine turning as evidence for god, you can't just co opt shaky evidence as a proof of your god, all the evidence says is "The universe has these parameters", that is the only thing we know for sure, all the rest is speculation (any physicist worth his salt will happily agree to this), we know very, very little about the fundamental workings of the universe.

I should add though, there is also a consensus among physicists that 95% of the universe is missing, so take everything they say with a pinch of salt, this is coming from a physicist by the way.

Edit, also, you may want to acquaint yourself with the anthropic principle, it makes exceedingly good sense.

[Tank]

[kokaki1g]

:pop:

a valid point

[Whitney]

Hawking noting that he is amazed by the universe then some other random person claiming that scientists agree with the phrase "fine tuning" (which is not true since that is a creationist term that can't be used without first unscientifically assuming a fine tuner) does not an argument make.

[harriet_tubman]

Even if the chances are supremely tiny that a universe would form within those bands, that does not suggest evidence of agency.

actually it does.  imagine this thought experiment.  first, do you agree with hawking that if the strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, speed of light, strength of gravity as well as others if they were different than the universe would collapse like a house of cards?  second, let's assume for the sake of argument, that you're right, that there are other tiny ranges in which life can arise, that would be very hard to prove or disprove but let's give the atheists the benefit of the doubt that that can happen.  now let's say there are 3 universes, one is the parthenon, the other is the pantheon, the third is the eiffel tower.  all three are enormously complex, though much less complex than our universe, and all of them will collapse if a few bricks here and there are removed.  now let's say that you are a living being inhabiting those universes but you're not intelligent enough to observe the structure of the building you live in which is the predicament man was in right up until about 1950 more or less.  now let's say you finally learned enough about science so that you could observe the intricate shape of the building you lived in and you saw how amazingly intricate, fine-tuned and complex it really was.  anyone who sees the eiffel tower immediately concludes that it is designed.  you don't just throw a million dice out into the void and expect them to form a pyramid.

If this universe had not formed so life could exist, we would not be here to complain.

i don't see how that proves atheism

[harriet_tubman]

The whole bulk of the argument is; the parameters are x y z values, if they were different, life would not have evolved, therefore, something must have tuned them to be the way they are, to get the desired result. Surely you can see the shaky nature of the second premise, and the huge non sequitur for the conclusion?

where there is a design there is a designer, doesn't seem to shaky to me.

It is also laughable you present evidence of fine turning as evidence for god,

do you think blind forces can fine tune?

I should add though, there is also a consensus among physicists that 95% of the universe is missing,

are you saying that the universe is not fine-tuned?  also where did you get that fact that 95% of the cosmos is missing.  i think you're referring to dark energy and dark matter.  the existence of dark energy/matter does not negate the fact that the cosmos is fine-tuned

Edit, also, you may want to acquaint yourself with the anthropic principle, it makes exceedingly good sense.

you're right, it does and it doesn't prove atheism.

[Whitney]

How can you assume anything is "fine tuned" without first knowing there is a being to do the fine tuning?  

Snowflakes form patterns that are very complex (and pretty) yet form randomly...it wouldn't be right to call them fine tuned yet your way of thinking would lead us to that description.


As has already been said, life wouldn't exist if conditions didn't allow for life to exist.  Something working is not fine tuning...it just means it works.  And no, being able to understand the difference between fine turning and things just happening to be the way they are is not an argument for atheism, it's just a hole in the fine tuning argument.

[JillSwift]

actually it does.  imagine this thought experiment.  first, do you agree with hawking that if the strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, speed of light, strength of gravity as well as others if they were different than the universe would collapse like a house of cards?  second, let's assume for the sake of argument, that you're right, that there are other tiny ranges in which life can arise, that would be very hard to prove or disprove but let's give the atheists the benefit of the doubt that that can happen.  now let's say there are 3 universes, one is the parthenon, the other is the pantheon, the third is the eiffel tower.  all three are enormously complex, though much less complex than our universe, and all of them will collapse if a few bricks here and there are removed.  now let's say that you are a living being inhabiting those universes but you're not intelligent enough to observe the structure of the building you live in which is the predicament man was in right up until about 1950 more or less.  now let's say you finally learned enough about science so that you could observe the intricate shape of the building you lived in and you saw how amazingly intricate, fine-tuned and complex it really was.  anyone who sees the eiffel tower immediately concludes that it is designed.  you don't just throw a million dice out into the void and expect them to form a pyramid.

The problem with teleology (as I mention in my sig) is: If everything is designed, what does not-designed look like? If complexity can be part of randomness, how does complexity disprove randomness?

If this particular set of circumstances are one in X, then all other circumstances are equally unlikely. If this is an argument about how unlikely this arrangement is, would all other possible circumstances also suggest agency?

In short, you've just argued "from personal incredulity", as I said. In short, because you can't accept that complexity can arise without a designer, you posit a designer.

If this universe had not formed so life could exist, we would not be here to complain.

i don't see how that proves atheism

I don't remember trying to prove atheism. All I'm doing is poking holes in your argument. I've got nothing to prove (literally).  

You may want to become familiar with the concept of the "Null Hypothesis".

[elliebean]

One doesn't prove atheism. First of all, it can't be done. Second, there's no need. Failure to prove theism - that's all atheism needs, and there's no shortage of that.


On topic: The point you seem to have missed about the 'fine tuning' of the universe is that, if it were any other way, it would be just as 'fine tuned' to whatever that looked like. The fact that life exists in this universe is a [fortunate] byproduct of how the universe happened to form. If it had formed differently, life may not have come about or it might have come about differently; but it formed as it did and here we are. The idea that it proves, or even suggests a designer presupposes that there's an intended reason for life to exist as it is, that there's some end to the 'means' of our existence. I see nothing to suggest that is the case. What is accomplished by our being here, particularly being as we are and not in some other form? What does your designer want? What for?

[Will]

Sometimes I get frustrated when people argue undemonstrated conclusions as if they're evidence.

Mutation, selection, and adaptation disproves any evidence attributed to fine tuning. That's the long and short of it. All things change, all things are put into the crucible of natural selection, and from that other, better adapted things continue on. That doesn't just apply to biology, but physics.

[harriet_tubman]

Mutation, selection, and adaptation disproves any evidence attributed to fine tuning. That's the long and short of it.

let's see some demonstration.  

All things change, all things are put into the crucible of natural selection, and from that other, better adapted things continue on. That doesn't just apply to biology, but physics.

let's see some demonstration

[Whitney]

Mutation, selection, and adaptation disproves any evidence attributed to fine tuning. That's the long and short of it.

let's see some demonstration.  

All things change, all things are put into the crucible of natural selection, and from that other, better adapted things continue on. That doesn't just apply to biology, but physics.

let's see some demonstration

HAF is not a science classroom.