WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

Craig's arguments for God, Pt 4

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#61  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 29, 2017 6:28 pm

VazScep wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
VazScep wrote:Awww...I remember William Lane Craig. T'was a different era.

Yeah! One best forgotten! :lol:
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.

Debates about infinity? I bet they were never-ending! :lol:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#62  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 29, 2017 8:24 pm

This time round, I missed out something important, so I am now filling that gap: if the formation of the universe is by entirely natural processes, it cannot be a one-off thing. Nature doesn't do one-off's - it would be equivalent to expecting the sun to be the only star in the universe!
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#63  Postby Rumraket » Jul 29, 2017 8:39 pm

DavidMcC wrote:This time round, I missed out something important, so I am now filling that gap: if the formation of the universe is by entirely natural processes, it cannot be a one-off thing. Nature doesn't do one-off's - it would be equivalent to expecting the sun to be the only star in the universe!

How do you know nature doesn't do one-offs?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13174
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#64  Postby pelfdaddy » Jul 29, 2017 9:27 pm

Why do people keep insisting that a different universe would be different?

We have no idea what type of universe would give rise to some form of consciousness, but we damn sure know that whatever consciousness arose from whatever universe, it would be insisting that "If things were slightly different, I would not be here."

Why in the fuschia fuck is that a meaningful statement? Answer: It's not.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1015
Age: 53
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#65  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 29, 2017 9:52 pm

DavidMcC wrote:This time round, I missed out something important, so I am now filling that gap: if the formation of the universe is by entirely natural processes, it cannot be a one-off thing. Nature doesn't do one-off's

You need to actually demonstrate this, not just assert.

DavidMcC wrote: - it would be equivalent to expecting the sun to be the only star in the universe!

Unless you can explain why, this is a non-sequitur.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30233
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#66  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 29, 2017 9:53 pm

pelfdaddy wrote:Why do people keep insisting that a different universe would be different?

We have no idea what type of universe would give rise to some form of consciousness, but we damn sure know that whatever consciousness arose from whatever universe, it would be insisting that "If things were slightly different, I would not be here."

Why in the fuschia fuck is that a meaningful statement? Answer: It's not.

Technically, the chance of our universe being the way it is, is a 100%, since ours is the only one we know exists.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30233
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#67  Postby Shrunk » Jul 30, 2017 1:19 am

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.


Or maybe there are solar systems drastically different from ours that have life that is completely unlike what exists here. How would we know?

What's so special about life, anyway? If you completely change the physical parameters of the universe maybe things for more wondrous, and beyond our conception, become possible. It's weird to hear the anthropic argument made by people who also think god is such hot shit precisely because he isn't bound by the physical laws of our universe.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#68  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 30, 2017 1:02 pm

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. The assertion that 25% of parameter space allows life is questionable, because it requires more than just nucleosynthesis to allow life - there has to be a very complex biochemistry, which is therefore dependent on more than just having atoms more complex than hydrogen.


Please point to where in those scientific papers, the authors merely "asserted" their conclusions. I await this eagerly.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22016
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#69  Postby romansh » Jul 30, 2017 4:35 pm

How do we "know" that the other potential universes are not better at:
    Having systems that replicate.
    Where the replication is slightly imperfect.
    And some replicators survive to reproduce more often in any given system.

Just curious?

ps what is 25 % of infinity?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2709

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#70  Postby Greyman » Jul 31, 2017 1:15 am

Calilasseia wrote:
DavidMcC wrote: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. The assertion that 25% of parameter space allows life is questionable, because it requires more than just nucleosynthesis to allow life - there has to be a very complex biochemistry, which is therefore dependent on more than just having atoms more complex than hydrogen.

Please point to where in those scientific papers, the authors merely "asserted" their conclusions. I await this eagerly.
Indeed, what we actually have is :
  • A model of how variation of parameters affects certain requirements for life.
  • Calculations based on that model identifying what region of a large parameter space might meet the criteria.
  • A measure of the degree of freedom for these parameters. (Not a claim of probability).

Let us compare and contrast. On the other hand we have an ascertion that any variation of the parameters disallows life, and therefore that the actual values are too improbable to happen.
  • No model.
  • No calculations.
  • No measure.
So... Which is facing a worse problem again?
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 52

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#71  Postby Greyman » Jul 31, 2017 1:43 am

romansh wrote:ps what is 25 % of infinity?
25% of a large parameter space.

By analogy:

There is a dart sticking into a piece of cork on a wall panelling. We have no reason to suspect the dart was aimed at that particular piece of cork, or how wild the throw was, or if more than one dart were throwen, but when we look at a reasonably large area of the wall we find that a sizable portion of that surface is covered in cork. So we can at least conclude that hitting some cork is not impossible for any dart incidentally flying in that general direction on the wall.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 52

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#72  Postby romansh » Jul 31, 2017 3:44 am

Greyman wrote:
romansh wrote:ps what is 25 % of infinity?
25% of a large parameter space.

My understanding of the multiverse was there are an infinite number of them.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2709

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#73  Postby juju7 » Jul 31, 2017 8:21 am

DavidMcC wrote:
VazScep wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
VazScep wrote:Awww...I remember William Lane Craig. T'was a different era.

Yeah! One best forgotten! :lol:
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.

Debates about infinity? I bet they were never-ending! :lol:

They have been around forever.
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#74  Postby murshid » Aug 04, 2017 4:36 pm

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? 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. 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.

Do we even know whether the constants can have different values?
.
.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" – Douglas Adams
User avatar
murshid
 
Name: Murshid
Posts: 8744
Age: 37
Male

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#75  Postby juju7 » Aug 07, 2017 12:19 pm

murshid wrote:
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? 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. 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.

Do we even know whether the constants can have different values?
.

Yes.
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#76  Postby Rumraket » Aug 07, 2017 1:40 pm

No we don't. Or at least, there is significant uncertainty about the values of some of the constants. We don't know for a fact that they really take on different values, or whether we are just the subjects of fluctuations in measuring accuracy.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13174
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: WL Craig: The Fine Tuning Argument

#77  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 07, 2017 8:06 pm

What we do have, however, is evidence that certain constants have not varied by more than 1 part in 108 over a very long time period, from sources such as distant supernovae and the Oklo natural nuclear reactor. Which have all yielded nucleosynthesis data consonant with modern values of those constants, generated in the case of Oklo 1.7 billion years ago.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22016
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest