The Fine-Tuning Argument: A Ball at the base of a Mountain

[Void Serpent]

Would it really be beyond a deity that can create matter from nothing to also create photons starting some distance between their "source" and destination?

That would imply the "image" starts somewhere the source does not, but with my limited knowledge of optics and ray diagrams i would say we could tell that the image we receive is not from its original source. If you form an apparatus; Source, lens1, lens2, and screen. You can find the image projected from lens1 with the diagrams from the source, insert lens2 and you cannot use the original source for the diagram to find the new image. Instead the image formed from lens1 becomes the source for lens2. So no, assuming all physical laws and constraints were placed upon "creation" ie a deity could say images can precede sources however it would need to incorporate this into "creation" as well so that the foundation is set.

More on topic for "fine" tuning, I believe it is a backwards way to look at the universe and our own selves. The universe is not fine-tuned to us, we are tuned to it. Had global temperatures been different we either would still be microorganisms or we would have evolved with more or less hair, melanin, or looked radically different(evolving from a kangaroo maybe) but we would still say "gee the universe sure seems to be created around the existence of my joey and me." Yet even here, on earth, there are places and times humans could not survive.

[Jack]

If that assumption is incorrect and it was created by God there is no way we can measure its age accurately.

Thank you for providing another example of how saying "god did it" provides us with no useful knowledge.

[el ايمان]

Even a Darwinist would not make such a claim. Darwinists agree among each other that we evolved from a common ancestor. This common ancestor is unknown. Humans may share a common ancestor with primates but that does not mean they evolved from them. There is a big difference.

Humans are primates according to modern taxonomy, therefore we evolved from the first primate, who in turn evolved from one of its nonprimate ancestors.

[LetThereBe]

Thank you for providing another example of how saying "god did it" provides us with no useful knowledge.

Is saying "here we are, so I guess the absurdly improbable explanation is how it happened" any better?

[Jack]

Sure. Absurdly improbable trumps ridiculously nonsensical, and we don't know trumps them both. "We don't know" is what motivates science, it's what makes humans want to know. God did it is a non-conclusion, an non-answer that answers nothing yet claims to be an answer thus discouraging further exploration.

[LetThereBe]

Sure. Absurdly improbable trumps ridiculously nonsensical, and we don't know trumps them both. "We don't know" is what motivates science, it's what makes humans want to know. God did it is a non-conclusion, an non-answer that answers nothing yet claims to be an answer thus discouraging further exploration.

Anything other than "I don't know" is a non-conclusion, a non-answer that answers nothing yet claims to be an answer thus discouraging exploration.
I don't see why "God did it" is absurdly nonsensical either.
When you get into the specifics of certain religions I can see where you are coming from... but I don't see the generic concept of a creator as being so far-fetched.

That isn't to say we actually have reason to accept it as an explanation.

[truthreality]

Thank you for providing another example of how saying "god did it" provides us with no useful knowledge.

Evolution provides a better explanation?

I have a lot of respect for science but if there is one thing we know theories are not permanent in science.

You are using preliminary evidence (evolution) from a field that is in its infancy (science) to argue fact and reality.

Another theory will come along in some time and invalidate Darwin's theory of evolution. Maybe it will incorporate some elements. That's the way science works. New theories come along and dismiss old ones.

I am glad we are discussing the topic of evolution. For a scientific theory it is built on very unscientific grounds.

It jumps to drastic conclusions based on unsubstantiated evidence. And no I am not speaking from ignorance and stupidity.

We evolved from primates? Is there any substantial evidence that primates are evolving into humans in our modern world?

Why do we not see intermediate forms of species?

If the evolutionary process is a fact there should many traces of it in the present. New discoveries should strengthen the theory.

For example, Darwin believed that in the future fossels would support his theory. Is this is the case?

How did our complex living cells come into existence? Biology has shown that just one of our cells is more complex and interconnected then a city. Such a structure can only work process if it was designed so from the beginning and all its parts came together in the same time working together completely. Otherwise the system would fall apart.

Evolution supposedly takes millions of years. Are we observing partially evolved species? No plants and animals are fully formed.

Point to me proof of an intermediate form that we can observe now that would be the result of a simple species evolving into a complex one. If these intermediate forms had ever really existed there would be plenty of fossil evidence due to the large amount of species.

I admit that horizontal evolution is a fact. Vertical evolution is B.S. unless nature is some sort of brilliant engineer and designer.

[truthreality]

Humans are primates according to modern taxonomy, therefore we evolved from the first primate, who in turn evolved from one of its nonprimate ancestors.

Lol we are animals? You really believe that? We are mammals in some respects but there are many attributes that humans have the separate us from animals.

[truthreality]

False, we did indeed evolve from primates. The original proto-primate was a creature that resembled today's lemurs more than anything else. Great apes diverged from monkeys and lemurs first, and then only around 7 million years ago hominids diverged from the other great apes.

Vertical evolution is a very controversial topic among even scientists. I have read that the advances we have gained in biology and genetics over the past century have put Darwin's theory of evolution in trouble.

Humans have been around for only ~200,000 years. Dinosaurs dominated for several hundred million. Indeed, from a teleological perspective it is much more likely that the Earth was created for bacteria, which have been around for nearly 4 billion years, and make up the vast majority of the planet's biomass. There are more bacterial cells in your own body than there are human cells.

Lets take this to be true. Doesn't the existence of dinosaurs contradict the theory that simple species evolved into complex species? Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds. This is the exact opposite direction of the process of evolution by Darwin.

Except that machines are built to accomplish tasks. What task does the universe accomplish? Supporting humans? Why is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe so inhospitable to humans that we would die in a matter of moments? Why did it take ~14 billion years for humans to arise?

Yes the universe was a machine designed to support humans. Evolutionists who say that humans took 14 billions to arise are using inductive processes based on shady ground.

~70% of the Earth's surface is inhospitable ocean.

Yet the earth perfectly accommodates human life.

"Lower" in what sense? Humans, again, have only been around for about 200,000 years. Give us another couple hundred million and these arguments might hold some water. Evolution is not a linear process. Species diversify and fulfill ecological niches which depend on the physical conditions of the Earth and on the other species that exist. Calling humans the "higher" species simply is not warranted by anything other than our own arrogance.

Humans are more highly evolved and complicate species then animals.

[truthreality]

Sure. Absurdly improbable trumps ridiculously nonsensical, and we don't know trumps them both. "We don't know" is what motivates science, it's what makes humans want to know. God did it is a non-conclusion, an non-answer that answers nothing yet claims to be an answer thus discouraging further exploration.

Yet scientists have the intellectual arrogance to dismiss other claims as false and mock other people's beliefs that is built on ones own experience. This doesn't sound like a humble "we don't know" more like an arrogant "we are right and you are wrong". Science is a continually evolving process. There are so many "we don't knows" among theories that have already been considered fact.

[Senor Hoint]

Evolution provides a better explanation?

I have a lot of respect for science but if there is one thing we know theories are not permanent in science.

You are using preliminary evidence (evolution) from a field that is in its infancy (science) to argue fact and reality.

Another theory will come along in some time and invalidate Darwin's theory of evolution. Maybe it will incorporate some elements. That's the way science works. New theories come along and dismiss old ones.

Not in the case of evolution. There is no other theory that could conceivably displace evolution by natural selection.

We evolved from primates? Is there any substantial evidence that primates are evolving into humans in our modern world?

This question reveals your ignorance of how evolution works. We do not observe speciation that occurs over millions of human lifetimes. No one is arguing that humans evolved from modern primates. We evolved from archaic primates.

Why do we not see intermediate forms of species?

Evolution: From Reptiles to Mammals
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the evolutionary process is a fact there should many traces of it in the present. New discoveries should strengthen the theory.

For example, Darwin believed that in the future fossels would support his theory. Is this is the case?

Yes...

How did our complex living cells come into existence? Biology has shown that just one of our cells is more complex and interconnected then a city. Such a structure can only work process if it was designed so from the beginning and all its parts came together in the same time working together completely. Otherwise the system would fall apart.

Any evidence for this assertion?

Evolution supposedly takes millions of years. Are we observing partially evolved species? No plants and animals are fully formed.

What is a "partially evolved species?" How could we possibly observe evolution on a timescale such as a million years? Every experiment that we've made into evolution over practical timescales has confirmed that organisms do indeed evolve.

Point to me proof of an intermediate form that we can observe now that would be the result of a simple species evolving into a complex one. If these intermediate forms had ever really existed there would be plenty of fossil evidence due to the large amount of species.

There is plenty of fossil evidence. Refer to the Wikipedia page on Transitional Fossils.

I admit that horizontal evolution is a fact. Vertical evolution is B.S. unless nature is some sort of brilliant engineer and designer.

What is the difference between these two things? Why should evolution stop short of speciation (particularly when species do not intrinsically exist and are largely an arbitrary classification invented by humans)?

Vertical evolution is a very controversial topic among even scientists. I have read that the advances we have gained in biology and genetics over the past century have put Darwin's theory of evolution in trouble.

Wrong. Darwin's original theory was ignorant of genetics, but modern genetics have categorically confirmed the predictions of evolutionary theory. The only thing genetics has changed is our understanding of the actual evolutionary history of life, not the fact that evolution occurs.

Lets take this to be true. Doesn't the existence of dinosaurs contradict the theory that simple species evolved into complex species? Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds. This is the exact opposite direction of the process of evolution by Darwin.

It doesn't predict anything of the sort. It predicts that organisms will evolve to suit their conditions. Human notions of "complexity" have no place in it. Also, care to explain how dinosaurs are "more complex" than birds?

Yes the universe was a machine designed to support humans. Evolutionists who say that humans took 14 billions to arise are using inductive processes based on shady ground.

Interesting, I was unaware that the same physics that govern the working of my computer were "shady ground."

Yet the earth perfectly accommodates human life.

You don't live in a very disaster-prone area, do you?

Humans are more highly evolved and complicate species then animals.

Again, what evidence do you have that humans are "more highly evolved?" How do we measure how "highly evolved" a species is?

[hensatri]

Emphasis added by me.

Whether or not the origin of life is truly extremely improbable or extremely probable to occur based on currently understood natural methods depends on this entirely. If there has only been "one hand played" then the odds are so small as to consider this for all intents and purposes an impossible explanation. If there have been quadrillions of "hands played" then this may be a perfectly reasonable explanation.
...but we don't know. We can't say it is an "acceptable" explanation. We certainly can't say it is a probable explanation. All we honestly have is "I don't know".



Emphasis added by me.

This is what I disagree with. We do not know this. Yes, "here we are" just as that soccer ball was lying at the base of the mountain. Yet we don't have those "chalk markers" to show that the ball did indeed take that incredibly improbable course. We only know the current state with certainty, so we don't have the circumstances that actually led up to it.
Yes, if your hand had a 1 in a million chance, there is a 999,999 in a million chance that there is "something else going on here".



I agree, and that is not what I was arguing. The only thing I was saying by "accept improbability" but "don't accept the outcome" is to say that I accept the odds of something are low. What I do not accept is that this improbable thing comes to pass.
Again, as an example I accept that the odds of ten consecutive heads is low. This is just a matter of acknowledging math. I would be extremely skeptical about such low odds coming to pass.



So what is the threshold for practically knowable? You seem to acknowledge that the natural origin of life might have 1 in a trillion odds, but think this is sufficiently reliable to accept simply "because we are here".



Agreed, but a more probable explanation will always be a preferred explanation from a scientific sense. We know it happened. We know the end result. So if the odds are 1% that it arose through currently understood natural processes, then the sum of all alternatives is 99%. We can say with 99% confidence that this current natural explanation is wrong.



There are things that are so improbable that they have never happened. If all of the data points toward a certain explanation, then the odds of that explanation being true would go up substantially.
As I said with evolution: the theory would not be tenable without the driving mechanism of natural selection to remove the hurdle of virtually impossible improbability. There haven't been enough organisms in the history of the universe for it to otherwise be a reasonable explanation.

You are conflating "unlikely to occur" with "ability to be determined to have occurred". I am also going to accuse you of being disingenuous and presenting a mindset that you have custom tailored for this debate and would never employ in actuality.

Let’s go back to the hand of poker. If the odds of a royal flush are about 64000:1 then that means you have a 99.998% chance of getting “not a royal flush”. So if I get a royal flush are you then 99.998% sure that I cheated?

That is the logic you seem to be employing when you say: “So if the odds are 1% that it arose through currently understood natural processes, then the sum of all alternatives is 99%. We can say with 99% confidence that this current natural explanation is wrong.”

This is blatantly wrong. We can observe an unlikely thing happen, such as rolling a Yahtzee, which has only a .08% chance of occurring, and say with 100% certainty that this event with a 99.02% chance against it did, in fact, occur.

You say: “What I do not accept is that this improbable thing comes to pass.” And again, I accuse you of being overtly disingenuous. You accept that improbable things come to pass every single day. There is a whirling maelstrom of supremely unlikely events playing out around you, in you, to you, and because of you at almost all times, and you don’t fall into an philosophical treatise on what level of probability warrants belief at each of those instances I assume.

Ever been in a car wreck and had you mind boggled by the stupendous unlikelihood of the variables at play aligning in just such a way that the accident occurred? Clearly the odds based on pure chance of such an event are tiny, so then can we have a high percentage of certainty that it wasn’t chance at all…that some conspiracy is afoot?

Spare me.

Now please, if you really think that an event being only 1% likely to happen means that we can be 99% certain that it didn’t happen, then I invite you to examine whether or not you REALLY think that is a valid manner of considering issues, or are just trying to run a debate point to ground.

I suspect that latter.