Craig's arguments for God, Pt 4
Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86
DavidMcC wrote:I disagree with AC Grayling, when he says that a multiverse isn't necessary to explain the existence of life in the universe. It damn well IS, because there is no reason to assume that a one-off universe would just happen to have suitable fundamental constants for a complex, hydrocarbon-based biochemistry to be possble.
DavidMcC wrote:
EDIT: His statement to the effect it did anyway, because "here we are", does not answer what caused such an unlikely thing to occur in the first place. The interview posed the correct question on this, but Grayling's answer to it was a fudge.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:DavidMcC wrote:
EDIT: His statement to the effect it did anyway, because "here we are", does not answer what caused such an unlikely thing to occur in the first place. The interview posed the correct question on this, but Grayling's answer to it was a fudge.
How do you know it's unlikely?
DavidMcC wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:DavidMcC wrote:
EDIT: His statement to the effect it did anyway, because "here we are", does not answer what caused such an unlikely thing to occur in the first place. The interview posed the correct question on this, but Grayling's answer to it was a fudge.
How do you know it's unlikely?
Let me put it this way most physicists would agree that how the universe develops depends a lot on the values of the fundamental constants of that universe, and that complex biochemistry requires fairly precise values, but why should the fundamental constants of the universe have these values and not different ones?
DavidMcC wrote: The idea that "life would adapt" pre-supposes that life can start in the first place, and that in turn requires particular values of the constants.
DavidMcC wrote: Even getting atoms at all, places some demands on them, complex biochemistry is even more demanding, particularly of the fine-structure constant, which is basic to all of chemistry.
DavidMcC wrote:... Even in this universe, life on any given planet is highly unlikely, and it is only the sheer number of slightly different solar systems in it that gave life any real chance to start.
Calilasseia wrote:Already done the "fine tuning" myth to death elsewhere. In particular, I addressed the secondary myths attached thereto here four years ago, by presenting two scientific papers whose contents demonstrate that:
[1] Stars (the primary entities responsible for heavier nucleosynthesis) can exist in universes with a wide variety of values of certain fundamental physical constants - approximately 25% of a large parameter space is compatible therewith;
[2] Even eliminating the weak nuclear force from the picture, would have precious little impact upon the habitability of a universe bereft thereof, from the standpoint of human life. A recognisable physics (minus the missing weak force) and chemistry would still be present in some candidate weakless universes.
...
Calilasseia wrote:Already done the "fine tuning" myth to death elsewhere. In particular, I addressed the secondary myths attached thereto here four years ago, by presenting two scientific papers whose contents demonstrate that:
[1] Stars (the primary entities responsible for heavier nucleosynthesis) can exist in universes with a wide variety of values of certain fundamental physical constants - approximately 25% of a large parameter space is compatible therewith;
[2] Even eliminating the weak nuclear force from the picture, would have precious little impact upon the habitability of a universe bereft thereof, from the standpoint of human life. A recognisable physics (minus the missing weak force) and chemistry would still be present in some candidate weakless universes.
...
DavidMcC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Already done the "fine tuning" myth to death elsewhere. In particular, I addressed the secondary myths attached thereto here four years ago, by presenting two scientific papers whose contents demonstrate that:
[1] Stars (the primary entities responsible for heavier nucleosynthesis) can exist in universes with a wide variety of values of certain fundamental physical constants - approximately 25% of a large parameter space is compatible therewith;
[2] Even eliminating the weak nuclear force from the picture, would have precious little impact upon the habitability of a universe bereft thereof, from the standpoint of human life. A recognisable physics (minus the missing weak force) and chemistry would still be present in some candidate weakless universes.
...
You may make that assertion, but how do you know it is true? You are facing an even worse problem than the one TE confronted me with.
DavidMcC wrote:I have.
DavidMcC wrote: You asserted, in effect, that there is no reason why another universe shouldn't have exactly the same constants as this one.
DavidMcC wrote:IThat is notionally true, but the elephant in your room is the converse, because there is no known reason for them to be the same!
DavidMcC wrote:Anyway, in case late-comers to this thread mistakenly think I am arguing for a god,
DavidMcC wrote: let me remind them that multiverse theories obviate the need to invoke ID of the universe to get the constants right,
I only really stuck around these sceptic communities because, for reasons I never thought too hard about, I had opportunities to talk about stuff in which I was interested. I had long debates with people about infinity because of William Lane Craig, and I guess I have to thank him for that, because it was fun.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest