At Reasons.org: Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?

_{Caspian
December 6, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Question of the week: How do you respond to the argument against fine-tuning as evidence for God by those who say the universe and its laws of physics are the way they are because that’s the only way they could be?

My answer: As I have documented in my books, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe. However, that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be.

From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm.

As I explain in my books on fine-tuning, the universe can be fine-tuned in a different way to allow for the existence of certain kinds of bacteria but not allow for the existence of animals and humans. I also show how the laws of physics can remain unchanged but the universe structured so that no physical life is possible anywhere, anytime in the universe.
As I demonstrate in Designed to the Core, it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.

Unlike the universe, the observed sample size of the universe’s subcomponents is not one. For example, there are a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. So far, however, astronomers have detected only one star, our Sun, that possesses the fine-tuned history and features that make it possible for the existence of humans on a planet orbiting it. The Sun is not the only way stars can be. The same argument can be made for our Laniakea Supergalaxy Cluster, our Virgo Cluster of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy, our local spiral arm, our Local Bubble, our planetary system, our planet, and our moon. The fine-tuning of the universe and all its subcomponents also vary according to the intended purposes for humans. As I show in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, the fine-tuning that allows billions of humans on one planet to be redeemed from their sin and evil within a time span of several tens of thousands of years is orders of magnitude more constrained than the fine-tuning that allows for the existence of a tiny population of technology-free humans with lifespans briefer than 30 years.
Reasons.org

Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.

Comments

KF: PM1, all we need is what we already know, the fine tuning. KF
The sloppy use of language is not proof of design. When Crick and others refer to the genetic code, they are not saying that there was coding (verb) happening. When scientists talk about fine tuning, they are not claiming that there was an intelligence actively “tuning” the physical constants. But if the misrepresentation of these concepts is all you have to hang your ID hat on, knock your socks off. But don’t be surprised when nobody knowledgeable on the subjects take you seriously.Sir Giles_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

SG at 70, https://intelligentdesign.org/articles/peer-reviewed-peer-edited/relatd_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

PM1, all we need is what we already know, the fine tuning. KFkairosfocus_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Relatd: If there is design then there is a designer. Period.
And all you have to do to prove this is show us a proven example of design in nature. We can wait.Sir Giles_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

The Bible is legitimate. ID is not a cult. It is science. Those who argue against ID here appear to have nothing of substance. If there is design then there is a designer. Period.relatd_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

In this respect you’re quite right: it would be intellectually disappointing if the origin of the parameters of this universe were unknowable, and so it is tempting to conjecture a ‘supernatural’ intelligent
Two things: First, it is probably unknowable by design. That is what I would do and I am less than a slug compared to the creator of this universe. Second, there is no implication according to ID that the creator is supernatural, whatever that means. The creator must have have had immense intelligence and power at a minimum though. This will rub a lot of those here wrong on both sides of the debate. But do they really want a legitimate debate? In my almost 17 years here only one anti ID person was willing to enter into such a legitimate debate. For most of the nature of the creator, one has to go outside of ID. For example, many here cite the Bible. It may be legitimate but that is not ID.jerry_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

PM1 claims that the atheistic naturalist has no problem grounding rationality. PM1 does not directly address the facts I laid out in 61 and 62, but instead he references a 1944 Earnst Nagel article. An article with no associated abstract and, from what little was available for reading, does not come anywhere near grounding rationality within atheistic naturalism.
Logic Without Ontology Ernest Nagel Journal of Symbolic Logic 10 (1):16-18 (1944) Copy BIBTEX Abstract This article has no associated abstract https://philpapers.org/rec/NAGLWO
PM1 references more recent work, but provides no citation. PMI goes on to throw out a bunch of other references to try to say free will, and even Theism itself, is somehow not incompatible with his atheistic naturalism. No where does PM1 actually address any of the arguments that I presented in 61 and 62, but he instead expects me to dig through his references to see if there might be any argument in them that refutes the arguments I have presented. In short, PMI is pulling what is commonly known as a 'literature bluff',,,, which is old hat among Darwinists,,,
The Art Of Literature Bluffing - June 28, 2007 It works like this: Claim that “such and so has been conclusively refuted…” or “the author ignores research that has demonstrated…” or “this issue was addressed and resolved long ago…” and then cite a publication. Those using this tactic know that very few people will actually check out the references. However, in cases like that of hostile reviews of Behe’s new book, it would be wise to do so. You will most likely discover that the “refutations, demonstrations and resolutions” are nothing of the kind, but are fanciful storytelling, speculation, misrepresentation, or wildly imaginative extrapolation from the trivially obvious. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-art-of-literature-bluffing/ “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” - David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology
bornagain77_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

CD: Bones always was the smart a** of the trio….
If I learned anything from Star Trek, it was to never wear a red shirt when I travel.Sir Giles_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

@61
Yet the atheistic naturalist, in his rejection of God, has forsaken any coherent foundation on which to ground ‘tactics and logic’, i.e. rationality, in his worldview the first place.
Nope; see "Logic without Ontology" On naturalistic theories of rationality, recent work by Mercier and Sperber is quite good. On naturalistic theories of autonomy and agency, Mossio and Moreno's Biological Autonomy and Ginsburg and Jablonka's The Evolution of the Sensitive Soul can be read as fleshing out the concept of "natural freedom" that Hagglund contrasts with "spiritual freedom" in This Life. For naturalism and free will, here's a range of views: Just Deserts (Dennett vs Caruso), A Metaphysics for Freedom (this is the sort of view I would endorse), and The Self Beyond Itself. And, just in case one were interested in the compatibility of naturalism and theism, there's God, Value, and Nature by Fiona Ellis. Of course, I know, no one can be bothered to read anything any more. Reading runs the terrible risk of being invited to change one's mind. Far better to remain ignorant and proud of one's ignorance, I suppose. Learning something might induce a certain humility, and how awful that would be!PyrrhoManiac1_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

@49
Chance? Incredibly unlikely. The numbers are huge. But then this begs the question why anything should exist let alone this particular combination. Necessity? What necessity dictates the constants? No one has found a reason for this. Again begs the question on why anything should exist.
In order to rule out both "chance" and "necessity", and apply the explanatory filter to the universe as a whole, we would need to know some things. I doubt it's possible for us to know those things. Hence I don't think that it's possible for us to know what we would need to know in order to rule out "chance" and "necessity". "Chance and necessity" -- or more precisely, randomness and lawfulness -- are concepts that we know how to use in describing physical systems. When we use these concepts, we are using them to describe what we know how to measure: that is, what we are able to detect and track as well as the setting-up of a system of measurement. But we have no idea how to measure anything that is not part of this universe. So we cannot use the concepts of randomness or lawfulness in their scientific uses. This forces us back onto purely a priori reasoning, and specifically, onto the principle of sufficient reason. In this respect you're quite right: it would be intellectually disappointing if the origin of the parameters of this universe were unknowable, and so it is tempting to conjecture a 'supernatural' intelligent being to explain why this universe has the fundamental structure that it does. I don't have any particular objections to this line of reasoning, but I don't think it's an intellectual obligation, either. As the Jewish theologian Hans Jonas put it, speculation about the origins of the universe and God's role in that origin is a "luxury of reason," not a "need of reason".PyrrhoManiac1_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Seversky/53 Bones always was the smart a** of the trio....chuckdarwin_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

In short, to presuppose the universe is rational is to presuppose Theism to be true. As Paul Davies explained, "even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” —Paul Davies (cited in, The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science)
Moreover, besides his appeal to 'pure chance' as an explanatory principle making him "very irrational", (W. Pauli), the Darwinist's denial of the reality of free will also precludes the atheist from ever being rational. As Martin Cothran explains, "By their (Darwinists') own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order."
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html Of note: Martin Cothran is author of several textbooks on traditional logic https://www.amazon.com/Martin-Cothran/e/B00J249LUA/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1 (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
Here are a few more notes on how the atheist's denial of free will makes him 'very irrational' and drives him into catastrophic epistemological failure,
To further illustrate just how insane the Atheistic Naturalist’s position is, in their denial of free will, atheists are forced to hold that, “You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.” https://uncommondescent.com/mind/the-thought-that-stops-thought/#comment-770722
So thus in conclusion, Sir Giles may claim that he mocks "the ridiculous tactics and logic they (Christians) use to defend their views", but alas for him, his criticism of Christianity might carry much greater weight if not for the fact that his own atheistic worldview is a self-refuting morass of insane irrationality. As I've stated before, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to science, even to reality itself, than atheistic naturalism has turned out to be. Quotes and Verse:
‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”
bornagain77_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Sir Giles @ 52
AaronS1978: "… but how often it is that their (Christian) views are mocked by the others…" Sir Giles: "I don’t mock their views, I mock the ridiculous tactics and logic they use to defend their views."
Hmmm, very interesting claim coming from an atheistic naturalist. It presupposes that the atheistic naturalist has better 'tactics and logic' than a Christian does. Yet, in order for atheistic naturalists to have better 'tactics and logic' than Christians do, it is, obviously, first necessary for the atheistic naturalists to have the capacity to ground 'tactics and logic' in their worldview in the first place. Yet the atheistic naturalist, in his rejection of God, has forsaken any coherent foundation on which to ground 'tactics and logic', i.e. rationality, in his worldview the first place. As Dr. Egnor explains, "logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism?,,, Even to define naturalism is to refute it."
Naturalism and Self-Refutation - Michael Egnor - January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
The atheistic naturalist simply has no way to ground logic, (and therefore no way to ground rationality itself), within his worldview,
Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic - J. Warner Wallace January 9, 2019 Excerpt: All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. You’d have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic weren’t available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries.,,, The Christian Worldview accounts for the existence of the transcendent Laws of Logic. If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth. The Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of the nature of God. God did not create these laws. They are a reflection of His rational thinking, and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself. You and I, as humans, have the ability to discover these laws because we have been created in the image of God, but we don’t create or invent the laws. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/
In fact, in his rejection of God, the atheistic naturalist is forced to appeal to 'untethered randomness and/or chance', i.e. chaos, as his ultimate explanatory principle in his attempt to explain where life, (and the universe), came from.
True Darwinism Is All About Chance – – Noah Berlatsky – Jun 14, 2017 Excerpt: Chance is an uncomfortable thing. So Curtis Johnson argues in Darwin’s Dice: The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin, and he makes a compelling case. The central controversy, and the central innovation, in Darwin’s work is not the theory of natural selection itself, according to Johnson, but Darwin’s more basic, and more innovative, turn to randomness as a way to explain natural phenomena. This application of randomness was so controversial, Johnson argues, that Darwin tried to cover it up, replacing words like “accident” and “chance” with terms like “spontaneous variation” in later editions of his work. Nonetheless, the terminological shift was cosmetic: Randomness remained, and still remains, the disturbing center of Darwin’s theories. https://psmag.com/environment/wealth-rich-chance-charles-darwin-darwinism-chance-meritocracy-89764 “It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition - or the hope - that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one.” - Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
Yet, it is their presupposition of ‘Pure chance, absolutely free but blind’, instead of God, as the creator of life that precludes the Darwinist from ever being rational, or even from ever being 'scientific'. As Wolfgang Pauli himself pointed out, "While they (Darwinists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
“As a physicist, I should like to critically object that this model has not been supported by an affirmative estimate of probabilities so far. Such an estimate of the theoretical time scale of evolution as implied by the model should be compared with the empirical time scale. One would need to show that, according to the assumed model, the probability of de facto existing purposeful features to evolve was sufficiently high on the empirically known time scale. Such an estimate has nowhere been attempted though.” (p. 27) “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” – Wolfgang Pauli – Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher – (pp. 27-28) – 2006 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c374/50c4ef317ac03685450b6dce4acff47295fa.pdf
The key difference between ‘pure chance’ and miracles being, of course, there is no reason, nor rationale, to ever be found for why something happens by ‘pure chance’, while there is always a reason, or rationale, for why God might do a ‘miracle’. As Dr. Bruce Gordon explains, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle. Yet, In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. Therefore, Scientific materialism, (Naturalism), is epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. – Contemporary Physics and God – Part 2 – Dr Bruce Gordon – video (25:17 minute mark) https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=1517
As a shining example of the catastrophic epistemological failure that results from the atheistic naturalist's appeal to 'random miracles' as an explanatory principle, and as Dr. Bruce Gordon further explains, "What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science."
Bruce Gordon: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,, What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. ,,, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Shoot, as Cicero pointed out all the way back in 45 B.C., it has been known since ancient times that chance cannot possibly ground the rationality that we perceive to be behind the world.
"Is he worthy to be called a man who attributes to chance, not to an intelligent cause, the constant motion of the heavens, the regular courses of the stars, the agreeable proportion and connection of all things, conducted with so much reason that our intellect itself is unable to estimate it rightly? When we see machines move artificially, as a sphere, a clock, or the like, do we doubt whether they are the productions of reason?" - Cicero (45 BC) Marcus Tullius Cicero (3 January 106 BC – 7 December 43 BC) was a Roman statesman, lawyer, scholar, philosopher, and academic skeptic,,,, His influence on the Latin language was immense. He wrote more than three-quarters of extant Latin literature that is known to have existed in his lifetime, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero
bornagain77_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Prince Caspian:
Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.
I find the theme interesting: "Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?" I doubt that the mathematical framework for a cosmos is a matter of necessary being through and through so any given possible world will have the same physics as ours. Where, as Math is about the logic of structure and quantity, I find that that framework specifies N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc not parameters for a cosmos. What I have recently realised is that fine tuning is at the the core -- heart, centre -- of design and the design inference. For, complex function on many well matched, properly oriented, arranged and coupled parts naturally leads to zones of function isolated in the space of possible clumped or scattered configurations. So, FSCO/I is another expression of fine tuning, but in a narrower setting than the cosmos. Of course, irreducible complexity is a special form/case of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information. At cosmos level, Ross is right: "there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe." He is also right on manifest contingency: "that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be." Of course, in other physically possible worlds we will see that overwhelmingly, they are not fitted for C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life, much less intelligent life, or other architectures we might conceive. Deeply isolated islands of function, in short. KF PS, what happens is that there is a lot of poor worldview thinking that hampers science and particularly leads to warped views of God and creation, which then feed into the underlying hostility to the Christian heritage of our civilisation. In the philosophical sense, bad theology. This for instance comes out in misuse of bad design and problem of evils arguments that are all too commonly seen; starting with Darwin, Wallace, was much better and lo, he was a pioneering ID thinker as his The World of Life reveals. As for SG and his bad history on roots of ID, I refer him to the weak argument correctives and to Plato in The Laws Bk X. The design inference is independent of the Christian faith, and objectively warrants inference to design of life and cosmos fine tuned for life. Objectively.kairosfocus_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

PPS, SG, you need to respond to Wikipedia's confessions on the state of want of actual knowledge on HOW pyramids were built, with of course the wider point that we can infer design on signs without knowing the how of the design.kairosfocus_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

SG, again, I just noticed. I see I am accused of demonising atheists and atheism. Sorry, across C20 atheists did that already for themselves to the tune of 100+ million victims of totalitarian regimes; individuals caught up in this scheme of thought may well be a lot better than that, of course, but that -- thank God! -- has to do with admirable character traits and responsiveness to conscience, not the [il-]logic of the worldview they have taken up. What I have indeed done, and stand by for cause, is to point out the utter, irretrievable incoherence of evolutionary materialistic scientism as a worldview . . . which extends to fellow travellers. Notice, view, not personalities; it is fair comment that in my observation of UD it has been objectors to design thought who usually start a trifecta fallacy downspiral: red herrings > strawman caricatures soaked in ad homs and set alight > toxic clouds that frustrate sound discussion. For case in point, contrast the OP to what I just realised I need to speak to. Likewise, it is public knowledge that this view undermines both moral government [as in, opening the door to the sort of nihilism alluded to above] and responsible rational freedom, ending in incoherent self-discrediting chaos. Don't take my bare assertion, try Provine, say, in his cat out of the bag moment, Darwin Day Address in Tennessee in 1998:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent
[==> key theses of nihilism. Citing the just linked IEP: "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history." As without rational, responsible freedom, rationality collapses, Provine implies self referential incoherence. Similarly, ethical foundations include our self evident, pervasive first duties of reason: to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, fairness and justice etc. Provine has given a recipe for gross (and all too common) intellectual irresponsibility.]
. . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
So, I think the cat out of the bag self exposure did the job long since. I suggest, that evolutionary materialistic scientism is self defeatingly incoherent and nihilistic, so it should be abandoned. It has failed to even be consistent with rationality. FTR, warning, BRIDGE OUT is not demonisation, and that warning was on the table by the 1830's. KF PS: Heine's 1831 warning:
Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [--> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . do not overlook the obvious], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame [--> an irrational battle- and blood- lust]. … The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. … … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians [--> the ugly gulch between appearance to us and being as it is], Fichteans [--> subjectivity i/l/o the gulch and i/l/o chance and mechanical necessity, rejection of revelation beyond moral law], thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad etc], and philosophers of nature [--> Scientists]. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. … At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [--> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [--> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831]
kairosfocus_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

The vastness of the universe hence it probably must be teeming with life I dont buy that. Life requires much more than just enough area to make it happen, and you cannot extrapolate from, if in a small area such and such exists then in a tremendously vast area many more must exist. In small bodies of water in Africa you may get 20 or 30 Hippo`s s, so using the vast size logic in the pacific ocean there must be hundreds of thousands of Hippo`s , well no. Whats the criteria for Hippos being in that small body of water in Africa that does that translate to that vast body of water ,the pacific ocean. Whats the criteria for how life got started on earth and how improbable that was to happen without design , we all know the tornado sweeping thru a junkyard analogy, so getting life just because the universe is vast is not a given by any stretch of the imagination. Someone please explain how life got started here, and then we can see does the vastness of the universe mean life everywhere.Marfin_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

@54 “The problem with the Christian God as the Creator is why would He create a Universe that required constant maintenance in the first place when He is more than capable of designing a Universe which runs perfectly well on its own and would even include batteries.” How do you know this universe doesn’t? How does this universe work exactly? Doesn’t our knowledge of it seem to consistently change? Didn’t it just change with the most recent deep space photos? You seem to assert quite a bit about the nature of God and the universe given our minimal amount of knowledge on both. God apparently created heaven, the very place you constantly describe God should’ve created in the first place. God apparently created hell, the opposite of heaven, and us, the seemingly neutral in between. I suppose God can create whatever God wants to create for whatever reason God wants too. I’m also guessing God might not think like us (alien mind and all far above us) so applying our logic might not be sufficient to describe God’s motives. Now when discussing the such matters I would expect the individual doing criticizing would be an expert at the things they are criticizing the other individual for. (In this case God) I don’t believe you are an expert on the workings of the whole universe. No one is. And I certainly don’t believe you’re an expert on God. No one is, and I’m not sure of a single priest that would proclaim they were.AaronS1978_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

@ Sir Giles Much like our universe it is no coincidence I referenced that particular commentary immediately under 50 and I’m not specifically pointing you out.AaronS1978_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1/47
Well, Ross isn’t wrong to point out that lots of parameters in fundamental physics had to be just right in order for electrons, protons and neutrons to form hydrogen and helium, and for hydrogen to form stars, and thus all other elements.
No, he isn't and there's no doubt that how and why everything came to be as we observe is a profound mystery.
In the sci-fi novel Calculating God, it turns out that the universe really was fine-tuned by God, but that once in a while, He has to intervene in the systems He set up, just to nudge them back on course for the outcomes He desires. The last time He did that for Earth, it was when He allowed an asteroid to wipe out the dinosaurs so that mammals could flourish in their stead.
I have no problem with the idea of some vast alien intelligence that has been tinkering with life on this and possibly many other planets but it would still fall short of the omniscience and omnipotence attributed to the Christian God. The problem with the Christian God as the Creator is why would He create a Universe that required constant maintenance in the first place when He is more than capable of designing a Universe which runs perfectly well on its own and would even include batteries. The Calculating God sounds like an interesting book. In return, I would recommend - if you haven't already read it - Fred Hoyle's 1957 SF novel The Black Cloud. Seversky_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin/46
PM1/36 No, but I now and again Imagine that I could be one someday…..
That reminded me - as so many things do - of Star Trek , specifically The Original Series episode "Bread and Circuses", and a line from Dr McCoy just after they land on an alien planet that's a sort of 20th century Rome, ""Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land someplace and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel!'"Seversky_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

… but how often it is that their views are mocked by the others…
I don’t mock their views, I mock the ridiculous tactics and logic they use to defend their views.Sir Giles_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

So we claim that people like KF, Retald, and BA77 demonize the atheists on UD for their views but how often it is that their views are mocked by the others and we wonder why there is so much sh!t slinging here…….. and for a moment there this thread was moving in a good direction.AaronS1978_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Everyone seems to be forgetting that we were never intended to inhabit the entire planet. We were supposed to just hang out naked in the Garden of Eden forever, picking an orange now and again, petting the grizzlies and the triceratops, kind of like being in a big petting zoo with free food. So, the whole idea of "fine tuning" seems to suggest that the designer (a/k/a God), by making this "Privileged Planet", knew beforehand that we were going to screw it up and need a lot more real estate than planned.....chuckdarwin_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Still, not sure how this justifies the inference that therefore, all of these parameters had to be set up in advance by some intelligence who intended that complex life appear.
What is the source of the fine tuning? Chance? Incredibly unlikely. The numbers are huge. But then this begs the question why anything should exist let alone this particular combination. Necessity? What necessity dictates the constants? No one has found a reason for this. Again begs the question on why anything should exist. Planned - would explain it. But then why this combination? And if planned, what kind of power and intellect did it take to produce what we see? Raises questions about the nature of the creator and the purpose of the creation Aside: we speculate that it was set up for life as we know it. But there could be many more implications for the combination of constants besides life for us. We just don’t know what they are. This is not a post hoc ergo prompter hoc situation.jerry_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

PM1
Still, not sure how this justifies the inference that therefore, all of these parameters had to be set up in advance by some intelligence who intended that complex life appear.
What is the best explanation for all these parameters to be just in the right position to produce life? Dumb luck or design?Origenes_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

@43
Fine-tuned for humans to exist? The overwhelming majority of the observable Universe is implacably hostile not just to human beings but all terrestrial life. Even our little world is not exactly risk-free. I would say it’s something of a stretch to infer that this was all set up with us in mind – much like Adams’s puddle.
Well, Ross isn't wrong to point out that lots of parameters in fundamental physics had to be just right in order for electrons, protons and neutrons to form hydrogen and helium, and for hydrogen to form stars, and thus all other elements. Or that a life-giving planet would need to have lots of liquid water, lots of not-too-heavy elements (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, some metals), close enough to a major energy source, and in order for life to develop over a long period of time, buffered from asteroids and other mass extinction-causing events by the gravitational wells of gas giants. Still, not sure how this justifies the inference that therefore, all of these parameters had to be set up in advance by some intelligence who intended that complex life appear. In the sci-fi novel Calculating God, it turns out that the universe really was fine-tuned by God, but that once in a while, He has to intervene in the systems He set up, just to nudge them back on course for the outcomes He desires. The last time He did that for Earth, it was when He allowed an asteroid to wipe out the dinosaurs so that mammals could flourish in their stead.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

PM1/36 No, but I now and again Imagine that I could be one someday.....chuckdarwin_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Andrew at 41, Life just emerges. Let's all bow down and worship the word emerge. Name the planet, make sure the "building blocks of life" - amino acids - are there and POOF - Life. Automatic. Spontaneous. What fiction...relatd_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 43, Just because parts of the Earth are hostile does not mean you and 8 billion people are not living your lives here. Not perfect enough for you? Get over it. You can order carryout, eat chocolate chip cookies and all the rest. And no need to worry about the universe. Without a faster than light drive, no one will ever see it, beyond Mars - maybe. Yeah, and you apparently believe in the spontaneous generation of life.relatd_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply