Proposition 1 - Fine tuning

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Randomhero1982's picture
Proposition 1 - Fine tuning

I would like to offer a few propersitions in order to provoke debate amongst us all...

With that, here is my first proposition which regards 'fine tuning'...

'It is more reasonable and logical that we (humans) are fine tuned to live in this universe, as oppose to the universe being fine tuned for us.'

Thoughts...

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Ensjo's picture
This universe is fine tuned

This universe is fine tuned for rocks. We are just a curious side product. :-D

mykcob4's picture
You are correct Random hero.

You are correct Random hero. We adapted to the universe. The universe wasn't adapted to us.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Even in religion the universe

Even in religion the universe isn't fine tuned for us in it's entirety. Only the earth was adapted for us, and even then man was specifically placed in Eden. However if we take the universe as a whole, then it's laws must allow for life, or be adapted to it, otherwise it never would have developed.

Life doesn't adapt to the universe, as if life was something separate and invasive. The universe produced life, therefore it adapts itself for it. It's laws must first permit life before it can emerge and survive.

mykcob4's picture
That is total nonsense Breezy

That is total nonsense Breezy. The first living things on earth couldn't breathe oxygen. Life EVOLVED to breathe oxygen. That is just example of life adapting to the universe!

John 6IX Breezy's picture
You just said the first

You just said the first living things couldn't breath oxygen? How did they live then, did they too adapt from something else?

The universe has to reach a point where it can allow life before life can logically emerge. If the universe doesn't become adapted for us, we won't be here discussing it.

Even evolution, though you use words like adapt, isn't really adapting. We mutate and change, and the universe kills whatever doesn't meet it's standards. If humans will evolve, it can only happen once the atmosphere and the earth permit us.

Fine tuning comes first. Life second.

CyberLN's picture
“You just said the first

“You just said the first living things couldn't breath oxygen? How did they live then, did they too adapt from something else?”

The first living things on earth likely didn’t breathe at all!

Tin-man's picture
Just a little science trivia.

Just a little science trivia. As it is likely the first "living things" on this planet were plants, plants do not "breathe" oxygen. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and EMIT oxygen. So, in some small way, plants likely helped "scrub" the atmosphere to make it breathable for other organisms.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
I'm aware, the point I'm

I'm aware, the point I'm making is that they didn't breath oxygen (or didn't breathe at all) yet were still alive. So that needs to be explained. You can't just bypass it. You can't logically say the first living thing adapted to the universe in order to live, since adapting requires something to be alive in the first place. So clearly the first living thing is the result of the universe. It emerged from it when the universe was just right.

Aposteriori Unum's picture
Don't invoke logic here. You

Don't invoke logic here. You can say that the first living thing adapted to it's environment. There's no contradiction. But that's not what we're saying anyway. We're saying that the first living thing likely came from the environment around it. Then subsequent generations of the replicator adapted to survive better in the environment around it. The ones who survived long enough to replicate, passed their genetic information to the next generation and the ones who didn't, didn't. Then we have the fact that the replication process is imperfect... Some subsequent generations may have a trait that helps them better survive than the ones without. And therefore those that have the change that help them better survive long enough to replicate tend to be the ones to replicate more often and produce more generations. Those who fail at this tend to cease to exist. This is natural selection. The fact that anaerobic organisms came first and used carbon dioxide as an energy source and producing oxygen as a byproduct is well supported. The next step is that, because free oxygen reacts readily with other elements and changes the structures of the molecules... That it tends to be detrimental to the cells of living things at this point. Then the ones who happen to be more resistant to the effects of oxygen tend to live long enough to reproduce... Et cetera... To the point at which they begin to use the oxygen.

I'm not about to give a detailed explanation of this. If you refuse to accept facts and continue to make arguments from ignorance that's your prerogative. You have Bern told this stuff over and over. If you refuse to accept it at this point then your reasoning is flawed and you are not being honest.

You can't say" I don't know how this could happen" then be given an explanation of how it could... Then reject the explanation to assert yours... Without being guilty of both.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Just a few points I'd like to

Just a few points I'd like to clarify.

1. "You can say that the first living thing adapted to it's environment."

You really can't. That would require some type of a priori knowledge, or spirit making the adaptations before it became the first living thing. In contrast, if life can only exist at exactly 5 degrees Celsius, then not until the universe changes itself to 5 degrees can life exist.

Not to mention once life begins, the individual still doesn't adapt genetically. Larry the white moth doesn't change to black in order to survive in Industrial London. Larry dies. Larry's son however, which was randomly born black, lives. Larry's son didn't adapt, he was just born lucky. In an abstract sense yes "life" adapts. But individual organisms are not adapting, they're getting massacred, leaving a few lucky survivors. Its the ship of theseus at the genetic level.

2. "I'm not about to give a detailed explanation..."

Good, because not only could I probably give and explain those details better, they are also irrelevant to my argument.

Aposteriori Unum's picture
If you could give a better

If you could give a better explanation than me then that means you'd know more than me about it. And if you did then there is no fucking way you can deny that this happens. Unless... And here's the caveat... You were dishonest and you deny the truth in favor for what you want to believe.

Your argument is an argument from incredulity. You refuse to accept facts... So I wasn't directly addressing your argument by playing your game.. I was pointing out why your argument fails.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
You're side-stepping my

You're side-stepping my argument altogether and replacing it with this tribal "truth denier/accept the facts" gospel of yours.

You have to first understand my argument before you attempt to point out its flaws. Otherwise we end up here, where you're responding to me, but it feels like you're talking to somebody else.

Summarize my position, and I'll tell you where you're wrong.

Aposteriori Unum's picture
I'm sure you will tell me I'm

I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. That's what you do.

As for your argument. In general you argue that the universe was fine tuned by a creator god to support human life on earth. You argue that your creator god exists in various ways. You oppose the idea of evolution and you argue against it because you think that somehow if you can prove evolution false or at least make someone believe it's false then god did it will be the answer after that. Your entire position is based on a book of fairy tales that you attempt, desperately to convince others, perhaps yourself of, by coming up with ad hoc solutions to the many factual errors contained in that book. Don't be so obtuse to pretend you don't understand what the topic is here or that I somehow miss the point.

Specifically, you mentioned a logical impossibility that I addressed. It is not. There's nothing stopping an individual, logically, to adapt to its surroundings. That's the point I made because you mentioned logic and it had nothing to do with what you said. So the rest of what you said in the post falls apart based on that. We know that adaptation doesn't happen in one lifetime now, but we don't know it didn't ever.

Then we come to the Cross... We're talking about life adapting to its environment... And you seem to be implying that we're talking about the generation of the first living thing... How could it adapt? Irrelevant. This is common though, creationists often conflate evolution with a biogenesis. Despite there being a necessary connection between the two they are different.

As for the fine tuning argument I've skipped over most of the details and I'm offering an explanation that doesn't include wizards and fairies because while he can fight about x or y or what not, ultimately it always comes down to... "I can't think of any way that life could appear other than fine tuning... So that must be it. "

You didn't say that, but I know the heart of it, I've heard it before. ID, IR, fine tuning... Whatever.

Okay here's an explanation that's infinitely more likely than yours...

How could life adapt to an environment before there was life? Short answer, it couldn't. But how does life come about in an environment when there is no life? One way is a self replicating molecule. Something like rna or simpler. The conditions don't have to be conducive for life yet. But through many replications of this molecule, some imperfect, changes occur in its environment due to the chemical reactions within the replicators, and the replicators themselves change. The ones that are better suited for the new environment move on to replicate another day. Et cetera... Im not even talking about what we classify as life yet.

But this is all irrelevant if you're just going to reject anything that contradicts your holy book anyway. I cut to the chase because I don't like playing the creationists games... Arguing over this fossil and that property of the universe and what if things were different... You call it side stepping, I call it getting to the point.

The point is if you can't show that your creator/fine tuner god exists to do the fine tuning then you can't posit fine tuning.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
I'll number my responses more

I'll number my responses more or less by your paragraphs.

P1 - No, as far as I'm concerned God could have fine-tuned life for the universe, and not the other way around. My first post literally argued that biblically we don't see an entire universe fined tuned for us, only a portion of the earth. However, my position from a naturalistic perspective, is that the universe must first be tuned for life before it permits it: life is a product of the fine-tuned bubbles that the universe creates.

I'm on record as saying that if I were atheist, I would not accept evolution. I'm against evolution for scientific reasons. Thus why every post I've made on the subject, presents scientific arguments. You guys bring up God more than I do on this forum.

P2 - We do know that adaptation can't happen in one lifetime, because that would invoke Lamarckian biology. Adaptation has to occur at the genetic level, and you can't change your genetics after you're born. Thus you can't adapt biologically during your life time. The only organism that can change their genetics are bacteria, which can drop their DNA and have it picked up by neighboring bacteria. Had you argued that, I would have given you more credit, but I had to do it for you, and bacteria are not representative for the rest of the planet.

P3 - I never conflated evolution with abiogenesis. Since, ironically enough my argument hinges on the fact that the two are separate. Everyone keeps using evolution as evidence that we adapt to the universe, and I'm the only one saying evolution doesn't happen unless life happens, and life cannot happen until the universe is tuned for it.

P4 - Duh, of course I can't think of how life can appear unless the universe is tuned first. I also don't know how water can boil if its not at 100 degrees Celcius first. Oh wait, I do. I can add pressure to boil water. Nevermind: I don't know how a neuron can fire an action potential unless ions in the environment make its resting potential of -70 millivolts drop past its threshold.

In other words, I don't get how you think life can pop into existence while its physical and chemical prerequisites are not in place. Magic? I thought I was the religious one.

P5 - "Im not even talking about what we classify as life yet." Great, then let me know when you do. Are you talking about some kind of prion? Is this replicating molecule a crystal? What in the observable universe is "like" RNA or simpler? You're too vague, please specify. I'm guessing whatever that replicator is, can't come "alive" until the environmental conditions become conductive for it, right?

P6 - I suppose we all need a little strawman in our lives.

Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX Breezy - ..I don't

John 6IX Breezy - ..I don't get how you think life can pop into existence...

strawman

Aposteriori Unum's picture
These are the games I'm

These are the games I'm talking about.

"The universe must be tuned for life before life can exist. "

That's a word game. Replace tuned with something else like conducive and we're good. Why? Because you choose the word tuned so when someone agrees you can have that little ahhah moment.

I have read your posts. That's why this is not a straw man. You do deny evolution. You do believe in god and you do believe in creation.

P5 I'm not specifying because it doesn't matter. It's not a truth claim. I'm not saying what did happen. Only what could have happened. And very briefly... I'm not going to make the whole blind watchmaker argument in a post. Far too many words.

I don't know why you want to pretend that the fine tuning argument isn't about proving the existence of god. You say you reject evolution for scientific reasons... I don't believe that. Evolution is science and if you think you can prove it doesn't happen write a paper. My bet is you have no evidence for god fine tuning though.

"In other words, I don't get how you think life can pop into existence while its physical and chemical prerequisites are not in place. Magic? I thought I was the religious one."

That is a strawman.

"I also don't know how water can boil if its not at 100 degrees Celcius first. Oh wait, I do. I can add pressure to boil water. Nevermind: I don't know how a neuron can fire an action potential unless ions in the environment make its resting potential of -70 millivolts drop past its threshold."

That is crazy irrelevant.

"P3 - I never conflated evolution with abiogenesis. Since, ironically enough my argument hinges on the fact that the two are separate. Everyone keeps using evolution as evidence that we adapt to the universe, and I'm the only one saying evolution doesn't happen unless life happens, and life cannot happen until the universe is tuned for it."

That seems to contradict what you said about rejecting evolution.

"I'm on record as saying that if I were atheist, I would not accept evolution. I'm against evolution for scientific reasons. Thus why every post I've made on the subject, presents scientific arguments. You guys bring up God more than I do on this forum."

I haven't seen you make any scientific argument. Ken Ham thinks the creation museum is science too, but it isn't. It's bullshit.

A little honesty might help you out a whole lot.

Have a great night.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
It's not a word game. That's

It's not a word game. That's the word the OP used: Is the universe fine-tuned or is mankind? Given your complaint you should have argued with the OP and not me. Seems like he gave you a loaded question, or perhaps next time just don't bring preconceived ideas into the discussion.

Why do I pretend the tuning argument isn't about proving god? Great question, why do you pretend you don't believe in God? See how pointless it is to accuse others of pretense? Fairies could have tuned the universe, or the universe could have tuned itself, that's why it doesn't prove God.

"My bet is you have no evidence for god fine tuning" Great, and my bet is that you don't have evidence that leprechauns are really gnomes. But then again, you never claimed to have that evidence, and neither did I.

Duh, that was a strawman. I prefer to call it "mocking" since my goal was to make fun of your position, not misrepresent it. You continually push me to defend an argument I have not made, while keeping your own conjectures safe from refutation by saying they're not "truth claims." Tell me why I shouldn't laugh at that?

Funny that you call my examples irrelevant. Irrelevant to your misconception? How could my explanation of my own position be irrelevant, when it's my position you're against?

Aposteriori Unum's picture
You are unbelievable. I'm not

You are unbelievable. I'm not sure I believe that you even believe any of your shit. This is too good.

So if you don't have evidence why do you believe it? That is not a justified true belief then. You believe it because you want to believe it. My positions, the things I believe, have evidence.

"Why do I pretend the tuning argument isn't about proving god? Great question, why do you pretend you don't believe in God? "

So you're not pretending that it's not about god by avoiding the god aspect of it? That means either you are addressing that it is an argument for god and simply evading that aspect of the equation or you really think it's about something else. If, it's the former, then please, address the question: prove your god exists first then you can posit fine tuning by a god. If its the latter then you misunderstand the whole concept and you're probably on the wrong website. Which is it?

"Funny that you call my examples irrelevant. Irrelevant to your misconception? How could my explanation of my own position be irrelevant to my position, when it's my position you're against?"

As a matter of fact, evolution is irrelevant. So is abiogenesis. So is most of what you say. You aren't telling us your position. You are deceptive.

"...or perhaps next time just don't bring preconceived ideas into the discussion."

What are you talking about? I know what the fine tuning argument is and so do you. It's not a scientific argument, it's a theological argument.

"'My bet is you have no evidence for god fine tuning" Great, and my bet is that you don't have evidence that leprechauns are really gnomes. But then again, you never claimed to have that evidence, and neither did I.'

Good, glad we established that.

"Duh, that was a strawman. I prefer to call it "mocking" since my goal was to make fun of your position, not misrepresent it. You continually push me to defend an argument I have not made, while keeping your own conjectures safe from refutation by saying they're not "truth claims." Tell me why I shouldn't laugh at that?"

Last, but not least... I don't care what you prefer to call it... It's a strawman fallacy. I'm asking you to defend the argument you are making because I'm going to destroy it. And do you know what a truth claim is? I have made none. I have an arbitrary example of how something might happen, not how it did happen? Do you know the difference between an analytic proposition and a synthetic proposition? You know what, nevermind.

I don't get how you didn't understand everything I just said. I pointed out fallacies, contradictions and falsehoods... All in one post. I know you're not stupid. What option do I have left? That you purposely twist and spin what people say and lie about what you say and that you have a very flawed reasoning.

Tell me, why do you believe what you believe?

"You can't remain honest and be a creationist. " -Aron Ra.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
"I know what the fine tuning

"I know what the fine tuning argument is.."

Great, thus why I said you've brought preconceived ideas. You're arguing against that, instead of arguing against me. Heck even I myself argued against theological fine tuning when I said scripture doesn't describe such a universe.

"Tell me, why do you believe what you believe?"

No. I haven't told you what I believe, nor do I care enough about my own beliefs to bring them up. What matters is my response to the OP. I'll gladly repeat it for you: Tuning comes first. Life second.

Even Tin Man understood what I was saying and he's the first to say it's difficult.

Tin-man's picture
@John Re: "Even Tin Man

@John Re: "Even Tin Man understood what I was saying and he's the first to say it's difficult."

Hey, John. Are you referring to when I said, "I totally agree it makes no sense to say something "living" simply "appeared" one day and then had to quickly adapt to the conditions around it."? I'm guessing that is it. While the subject being discussed definitely has some complicated concepts (especially when getting down into the gritty details), I tend to comprehend such matters on a more "general" scale, even though I can fairly well follow along with the discussions between the intellectual "heavyweights" such as you and Apost. Oddly enough (and this is probably going to sound strange), I often understand things better than I am able to articulate/explain them. That being said, I want to make sure my statement was understood correctly, as it is possible I may not have been very clear in what I meant. Therefore, please allow me to try another way of explaining what I mean.

Basically, at some point in the distant past, conditions were such that some type of simple living organism was formed AS A RESULT of the given conditions. Therefore, there was no need for the "living" organism to "adapt" to anything. In other words, there was no setting of "fine tuned" conditions to which some form of living organism was then suddenly and mysteriously 'introduced" and had to go, "Oh, crap! I need to adapt to these conditions." Now, granted, time moves on, and surrounding conditions are constantly changing, right? And because of that, THEN the original living organism must begin to adapt to those changing conditions. Initially, however, there was no "adapting", because the organism came about as a result of the existing conditions at that time. I hope I made better sense with that.

Like I said, in my head I understand it. Accurately translating it to others can sometimes be a little tricky for me, though. LOL Just didn't want to accidentally be misleading about what I meant.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Clearly put TM.

Clearly put TM.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
"Basically, at some point in

"Basically, at some point in the distant past, conditions were such that some type of simple living organism was formed AS A RESULT of the given conditions."

YESSS!!! Or to put it shortly. Tuning comes first. Life second, as a result of that tuning. The universe slowly tunes itself, producing the right elements, the right temperatures, the right gravity, before life can emerge.

You did understand what I said. There's no theology in my comment. You just became a heavyweight in my opinion.

Tin-man's picture
@John Re: "You did

@John Re: "You did understand what I said."

Okay, cool. Then I didn't jumble it up too badly. *chuckle* So, with that in mind, I have been reading the other posts on this thread, and I have noticed a common "hiccup" everybody seems to be having trouble getting past concerning the term "fine tuned." Now, as a disclaimer, I may be way off base with this, but it is something I couldn't help but notice. It seems to me that folks are getting hung up on "fine tuned" because it seems to imply that someone or something intentionally caused the conditions that set "life' in motion. And, in all fairness, I can see where that term could be confusing in that respect. However, since you made it clear there was "no theology" intended in your comment, then I (personally) understand that when you used the term "fine tuned", it was intended as a term of convenience to mean the conditions simply had to be "just right" for "life" to develop; otherwise, life would not have developed (obviously). You were not implying those conditions were intentionally planned/caused. (Please correct me if I am wrong about that.) On the other hand, I can also see where somebody could use the term "fine tuned" to mean that something or some entity (god) intentionally set those conditions, as opposed to those conditions happening by random chance. In that particular case, I totally understand the objection to the term "fine tuned." Again, I could be way off on that, but for the sake of clarity, perhaps a different/better term could be agreed upon to avoid future confusion/misunderstandings.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Yup that is correct, and to

Yup that is correct, and to be fair its important to realize the term "fine tuned" had its origins in the OP, it wasn't a term I introduced, nor was it used exclusively by me. The phrase doesn't presupposed a method by which the tuning came about, only that its there. I've used alternative words throughout my responses such as adapted, permitting, allowing etc.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
-"Tuning comes first. Life

-"Tuning comes first. Life second, as a result of that tuning. The universe slowly tunes itself, producing the right elements, the right temperatures, the right gravity, before life can emerge."-

that is without doubt the most ludicrous statement I have ever read.

the level of wrong in this statement is quite something.

.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I've seen worse, but it is

I've seen worse, but it is pretty bad.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
it is rather spectacular in

it is rather spectacular in its ineptitude.

Randomhero1982's picture
Wow!

Wow!

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Tin-man's picture
Re: "The universe slowly

Re: "The universe slowly tunes itself..."

How does the universe DO anything to itself? (Maybe John was speaking metaphorically?) The universe simply IS. It has no consciousness to be able to intentionally do anything. Anything that happens is simply a reaction caused by the action(s) of a previous event(s). And if there just happened to be a moment at the right place, at the right time, with all the necessary elements/conditions in just the right amount/order such that just the right catalyst managed to bring some basic type of life form into existence, then - hey - as far as I'm concerned that is simply nature being nature. In no way does it mean (in my opinion) that the universe - or any other entity - consciously and intentionally set those conditions or (as everybody has been saying) "fine tuned" them. And, as I believe Lucy said, the same process that happened here on Earth could just as easily happen on any of the other billions of planets out there. And they do not necessarily have to match the same conditions for life as we know it on Earth. Quite honestly, that alone is a concept that has fascinated me ever since I was a kid. *chuckle*

Randomhero1982's picture
Me too Tin Man, I'm an

Me too Tin Man, I'm an amateur astronomer(pic below with the Canon D600, 50mm wide lens and 2min exposure)... look at all the possibilities out there, and that is nothing... a tiny miniscule speck within the sky.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.