This guy gives a good debunk of the fine-tuning argument which I'm surprised, given I've been on this and RDF for over 2 years, I've never heard before (I may have missed it).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dmc_a_E5w0[/youtube]

Apparently no one ever brings this up in debates against creationists and they get off scot-free abusing the term "fine-tuning".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dmc_a_E5w0[/youtube]

Animavore wrote:This guy gives a good debunk of the fine-tuning argument which I'm surprised, given I've been on this and RDF for over 2 years, I've never heard before (I may have missed it).

If I understand his point, I think I've made a somewhat similar point (thought not nearly as well or in such an entertaining matter). The way I explained it is the "fine tuning" argument is similar to saying that all circles are "fine tuned" such that the constant "Pi" can be used to calculate their area and circumference from their diameter. That is to say, the diameter and circumference of every single circle in existence have been independently set so that the latter is exactly the product of the former and Pi. Of course, this is false. It is a simple fact of mathematics that once you create a circle, it's circumerence is greater than it's diameter by the factor of Pi. Similarly, it is an unwarranted assumption that the physical constants of the universe are infinitely variable and can be set to whatever value God wishes, independently of each other. Can God create a circle whose circumference is equal to its diameter?

Is that kind of the same thing AndromedasWake is saying here?

I also made a similar point to the video's final argument here..

That's close. What he's actually saying is what I and others often say, which is that there is no justification for assuming that the constants of the universe can even be varied at all. Further, with a sample set of one, all probability calculations are meaningless. This is precisely why we say that, whatever the particular constant you're talking about, or even all of them together as a whole, the probability of them being exactly as they are is exactly one, because in every instance so far elucidated (1), they have been precisely what they are.

Your example is good, but employs a misdirection, because the ratios of a circle are definitional, which means that if they are varied, you don't have a circle.

Nice video.

hackenslash wrote: Your example is good, but employs a misdirection, because the ratios of a circle are definitional, which means that if they are varied, you don't have a circle.

But no more so than the creationist argument, which for no good reason privileges a universe with "life" above universes without it. Vary the ratios of dimensions of a circle, you just get a different shape. Vary the physical constants of the universe, you just get a different universe. Maybe one with something even more incredible and awe inspiring than intelligent life.

WLC was much younger then, and hasn't changed his argument even slightly.

What is the probability that his argument would not have changed in the intervening years?

Shrunk wrote:

hackenslash wrote: Your example is good, but employs a misdirection, because the ratios of a circle are definitional, which means that if they are varied, you don't have a circle.

But no more so than the creationist argument, which for no good reason privileges a universe with "life" above universes without it. Vary the ratios of dimensions of a circle, you just get a different shape. Vary the physical constants of the universe, you just get a different universe. Maybe one with something even more incredible and awe inspiring than intelligent life.

Oh, indeed.

hackenslash wrote:Maybe one with something even more incredible and awe inspiring than intelligent life.

Now there's a thought to keep you awake all night.

Animavore wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Maybe one with something even more incredible and awe inspiring than intelligent life.

Now there's a thought to keep you awake all night.

Shouldn't be too hard for the theists, though. All they need do is imagine a universe with a God that can create life no matter what the physical conditions of the unverse are.

Shrunk wrote:

Animavore wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Maybe one with something even more incredible and awe inspiring than intelligent life.

Now there's a thought to keep you awake all night.

Shouldn't be too hard for the theists, though. All they need do is imagine a universe with a God that can create life no matter what the physical conditions of the unverse are.

I wonder how many other worlds in how many countless universes didn't turn out the way he wanted and he's had to scrap?
Which attempt is this one? #10029987?

Animavore wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Animavore wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Maybe one with something even more incredible and awe inspiring than intelligent life.

Now there's a thought to keep you awake all night.

Shouldn't be too hard for the theists, though. All they need do is imagine a universe with a God that can create life no matter what the physical conditions of the unverse are.

I wonder how many other worlds in how many countless universes didn't turn out the way he wanted and he's had to scrap?
Which attempt is this one? #10029987?

When looked at this way, the fine tuning argument actually works as an anti-theist argument. Sort of the reverse of the ontological argument:

No greater being than God can be imagined.

According to the fine tuning argument, God can only create life if physical constants of the universe are "finely tuned."

One can imagine a being that is capable of creating life regardless of what those physical constants are.

Therefore, the "god" of the fine tuning argument is not really God.

Onyx8 wrote:WLC was much younger then, and hasn't changed his argument even slightly.

What is the probability that his argument would not have changed in the intervening years?

1 in 1052 I imagine.

Or to put it in cretinist terms; If you put all the barinfarts made by cretinists in a box the size of Jupiter and then smelt one particular aroma of brainfart from 1,000,000 AU.

the fine tuning argument doesnt make much sense, if these important 'constants' are in fact shown to not be that constant after all. there is evidence that the alpha constants change over time, for instance.

why a creator would 'fine tune' a universe to slowly change over time doesnt make sense.

wunksta wrote:the fine tuning argument doesnt make much sense, if these important 'constants' are in fact shown to not be that constant after all. there is evidence that the alpha constants change over time, for instance.

why a creator would 'fine tune' a universe to slowly change over time doesnt make sense.

Indeed, which reminds of another point I sometimes bring up, and that TK raised in the video, namely that it's difficult to assess the universe as 'fine-tuned for life' if you could remove one of the four fundamental forces (assuming gravity can properly be classified as a force, which is not clear) and it would actually mean that life was more probable, since more stable isotopes of carbon would be available for forming long chains.

Shrunk wrote:One can imagine a being that is capable of creating life regardless of what those physical constants are.

Therefore, the "god" of the fine tuning argument is not really God.

Ah, I love the smell of theological devastation in the morning.

Didn't some of the ancient Greeks suggest that the universe was created by a dimwitted mechanic?

With the fine tuning arguement, what universal constant can you use as a example in a debate?

Apologises for my noobness in physics. I have been watching Brian Cox and others to bring my knowledge and facts up to date. I am be trying to teach myself to understand some of the maths involved, but thats a different story.

Calilasseia wrote:And of course, this is before we consider the whole "Douglas Adams' puddle" refutation ...

First popularized by Beatrix Potter in her wonderful story, The Tale of Jemima Puddle Croco-Duck.