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

[Jack]

I have a lot of respect for science...

That's nice but a knowledge of science would be more useful.

...but if there is one thing we know theories are not permanent in science.

Of course they aren't. Our knowledge is far from complete, I doubt it will ever be complete, so it would be foolish to try and make theories absolute or permanent. The greatest strength of science is its ability to reassess it's conclusions and alter its findings in light of new evidence and a better interpretation of the evidence.

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

Only because evolution is the theory that best accounts for the evidence we have. Someday we may develop another theory that better explains our observations and the evidence but for now evolution explains it best.

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.

You're essentially correct except that there's no justification for the certainty of the first sentence. It may or may not, neither of us knows at this point in time.

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

And you know this how?

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

I don't concur with your conclusion.

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?

Questions like these expose a lack of knowledge about evolution. They don't deserve a serious response.

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

From 2008:

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

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

I'm curious, from whence did you learn what the final form of any living thing is?

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.

What attributes? What attribute do humans have that's so unique no other animal on Earth possess it?

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.

Really? Where did you read that? Citation please.

Yet the earth perfectly accommodates human life.

No, not perfectly, and historically the Earth has been much less hospitable to human life. The fact that humans can live here at all is due to something called adaptation. It's a part of the evolutionary process.

Humans are more highly evolved and complicate species then animals.

I was trying to think of an educated response to such a nonsensical comment but in the end I can only say bullshit.

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.

There's a bumpersticker that says, "If you don't like having your beliefs ridiculed don't have such ridiculous beliefs." I believe that applies here.

[LetThereBe]

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.

I accuse you of the same. No sane person would see a soccer ball at the base of the mountain and assume it followed some ridiculously unlikely obstacle course to get there.

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?

No, because there are additional factors that are not so easily mathematically simplified. For example, humans generally do not cheat in poker. True, I would not say they are honest 99.998% of the time, but it certainly influences the probability. If I have more information and know you personally, that would also influence my judgement. If I watched you shuffle that is another factor that I would consider in the probability.

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.

I'll admit that particular line of reasoning was flawed, but I stand by my opposition to the acceptance of an unlikely explanation just because we do not actually know what did happen. It is an argument from ignorance, profoundly unscientific, and likewise not how we treat any other observations in our lives.
I am just having some difficulty expressing it in a mathematically definitive manner.

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.

As I said... it is all a question of scale.
You admit you would be suspicious with sufficiently low odds (ten royal flushes in a row) and not just accept the improbable explanation. Yet you refuse to apply this skepticism to the question of the origin of life. In that case it seems okay to you to just say "we are here so I guess that is how it happened".

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?

I have not, but given that a quick google search yields that the odds of being in a serious car wreck at some point in your life is about 30%, it really isn't so unlikely.
If I was in a car wreck twice a day, every day for a year (with different drivers so that factor is ruled out) then yes... I would probably expect a conspiracy.
There is a point where skepticism is obviously warranted.

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 acknowledged that particular line of reasoning was flawed, but I pose you the challenge in return:
Do you REALLY think it is a valid manner of considering issues to say "this is the way it is, so I guess this one particular way we understand it could happen is the way it did happen". I can hardly think of a less scientific mindset. This is almost identical to the "god did it" mentality.

You have yet to address my example of evolution.
Don't you agree that if we have two explanations, one which is mathematically probable and one that is mathematically improbable, the former is the preferred explanation?
Would it be reasonable at all to just say "1000 mutations technically could happen in a single generation, and here we are, so I guess that is how it happened"?

[truthreality]

If you don't like having your beliefs ridiculed don't have such ridiculous beliefs.

Throughout history science has held many ridiculous beliefs. I am sure you have beliefs that some would consider ridiculous. You don't consider them ridiculous do you? But you have your reasons for believing them.

[Jack]

I am sure you have beliefs that some would consider ridiculous.

I have a few beliefs even I consider ridiculous.

You don't consider them ridiculous do you?

The ridiculous ones? Yes. When I don't want them ridiculed I keep them to myself.

But you have your reasons for believing them.

The difference between theists and me is that I admit my reasons for believing ridiculous things are not always logical or defensible.

If theists insist on airing their beliefs that an invisible man lives in an invisible place and by means not understood interacts with each and every human who believes he exists then they ought to be prepared to have those of us who consider this a fantastic and ridiculous claim to say so.

[truthreality]

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

That's what people who said the earth was flat believed...

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.

Although the process began with ancient primates we evolved from a common ancestor about 3.5 billion years ago. By scientific standards this is not that ancient.

I can't imagine that one of nature's laws would just stop. Can we imagine what would happen if the laws of gravity ceased? This means that humans should continue to evolve as well. If earth was not created for humans and humans are adapting then natural selection coupled with vertical evolution requires that we evolve into new species as well. We have been around for at least 2000 years. Are evolutionists documenting such a change within our species?

Any evidence for this assertion?

Any evidence for what? The complexity of the cell?

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.

Are you implying that nature is perfect? How did nature come to be such a perfect designer. I am sure there was some mishaps here and there. This should provide further evidence for some sort of evolutionary process.

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.

Wrong. Developments in biology have led to the questioning of Darwin's original theory by scientists. “As the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin’s criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.” (Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael J. Behe, pages 39-40)

It doesn't predict anything of the sort. It predicts that organisms will evolve to suit their conditions.

So then it's quite possible that we may devolved from certain species in the long past.

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

Who is saying that?

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

Thank god your beliefs aren't reality. Then I would go to sleep every night worried about getting up in the morning because some event might happen in this inhospitable earth that we live in that might kill me.

What disease prone area are you referring to? Just because earth is hospitable to humans doesn't mean diseases don't exist. I mean common the majority of land is completely hospitable to humans. Just because the ocean compromises most of the earth doesn't mean it wasn't created humans.

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

Are you serious? For one thing our brain and mind. For more complex and superior to animals.

[truthreality]

That's nice but a knowledge of science would be more useful.

Science is a very broad concept. Yeh you may be knowledgeable in evolution. But all fields of science? I doubt that.

Questions like these expose a lack of knowledge about evolution. They don't deserve a serious response.

Evolutionists claim we descended from ancient primates. They also claim that the earth was not created from humans and we had to adapt. Nature just doesn't drop its laws. Humans should be under a process of evolution as well. Why does it stop with us? Clearly this "inhospitable" earth needs to be adapted to by us.

I'm curious, from whence did you learn what the final form of any living thing is?

So humans are an incomplete form? We should be adapting and evolving then! I don't think we are though. I think we are satisfied with where we are at. Maybe we have outsmarted to earth with all our adapting. Through a complex process designed and govern by know one through millions of years we have somehow adapted to a completely inhospitable environment not created for us. I know you don't believe in miracle but lets be honest, evolution is a miracle.

What attributes? What attribute do humans have that's so unique no other animal on Earth possess it?

For one thing our mind and intellect are far superior to animals.

Are animals capable of dealing with the type of complex relationships we deal with?

Are they as creative as us?

Name one animal who has provided anything significant and meaningful to our world in terms of a discovery, an innovation, a piece of art, a civilization. etc.

You made a statement that "if you don't like to have your beliefs ridiculed don't have such ridiculous beliefs". Your belief that somehow animals are in the same league as us is not just ridiculous, it's stupid.

Why is it that even evolutionists refer to the primates we evolved from as primordial or primitive?

No, not perfectly, and historically the Earth has been much less hospitable to human life. The fact that humans can live here at all is due to something called adaptation. It's a part of the evolutionary process.

Even as an atheist you have to admit that our evolution is a miracle. Unless of course you believe it was planned.

I was trying to think of an educated response to such a nonsensical comment but in the end I can only say bullshit.

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." Oxford concise science dictionary

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." Chambers standard dictionary

[theophilus]

The reason most of the universe is so inhospitable is that it wasn't intended for humans. Only the earth was.

Why did God create the rest of it then?

He doesn't always tell us why he does the things he does. Humans are only a small part of his creation and most of what he does has nothing to do with us.

And we don't know it took 14 billion years for humans to arise. The measurements that show the universe is old all assume that the universe developed entirely by means of the same natural processes we see going on now. If that assumption is incorrect and it was created by God there is no way we can measure its age accurately.

What you are proposing would overthrow much of physics and chemistry. The processes governing the methods by which the measurements are taken are quite well-understood.

How would this have any effect on our scientific knowledge? The belief that the universe is 14 billion years old isn't based on anything we know about chemistry, physics, or any other science. It is based on the untestable assumption that the processes we can observe are the only factors in the development of the universe and that there has never been any kind of divine intervention in the process.

Why was the supposedly-omnipotent God bound to follow the rules of physics of our universe? Why did he need to create all of this other stuff to maintain humanity? It doesn't make any sense.

He doesn't follow the rules of physics; he created them and uses them to carry out his plans. It is impossible for us to know why he does things the way he does unless he chooses to reveal that information to us.

We use light as our measurement. The Observable Universe is 14billion light years in radius. Which means light has traveled for 14billion years, at least, for us to see it now. Even if there were a deity that created everything as it is where it is, it would still take 14billion years for us to see anything that was 14billion light years away. So the observable universe is at least 14billion years old.

Your argument assumes that light has always traveled at the same rate it does now and that its speed is the same in all parts of the universe. Scientists have been able to measure the speed of light for less than 400 years and all our measurement have taken place on or near the earth so it might be logical to assume that it never varies but we can't absolutely prove that this is true.

[Dave In Canada]

He doesn't follow the rules of physics; he created them and uses them to carry out his plans. It is impossible for us to know why he does things the way he does unless he chooses to reveal that information to us.

How can you make such bold assertions without a shred of evidence? (Please do not cite your bible as evidence unless you are willing to give other religious texts that same credence.) Why do you feel the need to invoke an imaginary being instead of just accepting that physics is one of the laws of the universe? We do not need God, he is an unneccesary distraction to logic.

[truthreality]

How can you make such bold assertions without a shred of evidence? (Please do not cite your bible as evidence unless you are willing to give other religious texts that same credence.) Why do you feel the need to invoke an imaginary being instead of just accepting that physics is one of the laws of the universe. We do not need God, he is an unneccesary distraction to logic.

I disagree strongly that God is an unecessary distraction to logic. An intelligent designer is perfectly compatible with an intelligent universe like ours. God provides other benefits that science can never provide. Uninterrupted happiness, joy bliss, euphoria and peace. Science WILL NEVER be an adequate substitute for God.

I also disagree that god is an imaginary being. Some great saints will argue the opposite, from their own experience, that God is more real then the universe we live in. Obviously you will be skeptical of this idea but your skepticism doesn't negate truth.

[Dave In Canada]

I disagree strongly that God is an unecessary distraction to logic. An intelligent designer is perfectly compatible with an intelligent universe like ours. God provides other benefits that science can never provide. Uninterrupted happiness, joy bliss, euphoria and peace. Science WILL NEVER be an adequate substitute for God.

I also disagree that god is an imaginary being. Some great saints will argue the opposite, from their own experience, that God is more real then the universe we live in. Obviously you will be skeptical of this idea but your skepticism doesn't negate truth.

Of course God is an unnecessary distraction. The fact you cannot provide one shred of empirical evidence of your God and the atttributes that you give him renders him incapacitated. You are asking us to take it on faith that your God exists no different than other faiths who do the same with their Gods. Why is it that you are simply able to dismiss other gods with a simple wave of the hand yet cannot accept that others can do the same with your God?

Please provide sources for your assertion that your God provides uninterrupted happiness, joy, bliss, euphoria and peace? I have never met a human who has experienced any of these uninterrupted for their entire existence on this planet.

Science isn't supposed to be an adequate substiture for God and only a fool would claim so. However we as humans have the ability to experience happiness, joy, bliss, euphoria and peace by accepting life for what it is and living each day to the fullest. Simply put, we do not need God to realize or see the beauty of this planet or experience happiness etc through our relationships with other people.

As I have stated before God only exists within our minds. Your assertion that God is more real than the universe lies in your brain and not oustide of it in any measurable way. My skepticism may not equate truth, however the truths you speak of cannot be proven in any meaningful way and therefore can simply be dismissed as nonsense along with the beliefs in any other mythical being.

[truthreality]

Of course God is an unnecessary distraction. The fact you cannot provide one shred of empirical evidence of your God and the atttributes that you give him renders him incapacitated.

God is not a tangible object it is an experience. I can't prove to you an experience that you have not experienced. An experience by it's very nature personal.

I have to be honest. It takes a greater leap of faith to dismiss an intelligent designer then it does to accept an intelligent designer.

You are asking us to take it on faith that your God exists no different than other faiths who do the same with their Gods. Why is it that you are simply able to dismiss other gods with a simple wave of the hand yet cannot accept that others can do the same with your God?

Who said I am dismissing other people's Gods? Hinduism is one of the only religions in the world that states that you can follow any religion you want and all lead to God. Hindu saints have been quoted as saying "no need to convert to Hinduism, be a good Christian or Muslim".

Please provide sources for your assertion that your God provides uninterrupted happiness, joy, bliss, euphoria and peace? I have never met a human who has experienced any of these uninterrupted for their entire existence on this planet.

The Hindu scriptures state Brahman is the nature of bliss, love, peace and happiness. This unanimously stated throughout the scriptures. Suffering and misery are aspects of the body and mind. Brahman is neither. This would be a ignorant hypothesis if if werent for the saints throughout history in different generations never meeting each other speaking of the same truth.

The consciousness described in Hinduism is pure consciousness. Those who are competent in meditation describe describe it as like oil flowing from a vessel.

Who said they experienced it for their entire existence on the planet? So long as one has a body and mind one is subject to interruptions from this state. The point is the state exists and many have made this claim, even those who haven't read the scriptures.

Ramana Maharishi is a great example. He used to sit in the temple in utter peace and people used to observe. They didn't know whether he was a bum or some great saint. They brought Hindu scripture to him, he had never read such scripture but was able to explain it to them with complete competence. You can't deny this because it is recorded in many literature recorded by people who were with him.

As I have stated before God only exists within our minds. Your assertion that God is more real than the universe lies in your brain and not oustide of it in any measurable way. My skepticism may not equate truth, however the truths you speak of cannot be proven in any meaningful way and therefore can simply be dismissed as nonsense along with the beliefs in any other mythical being.

How do you know this world isn't a projection of your mind? Do you experience this world in your dreams? Do you experience this world during deep sleep? How do you know this world has an absolute reality? Is there a measurable way to prove this world is real?

It can be dismissed as nonsense? Is that why some give up the entire world to abide in this nonsense because the joy supersedes any joy they have experienced in worldly life?

This world has order and logic to it. It's a compassionate universe. Many atheists take this for granted. You are living in a universe that has taken care of you since your birth. There are so many external factors that we are not even aware of that work in our favor everyday. Yet we go through to day completely oblivious in our own worlds.

[truthreality]

Of course God is an unnecessary distraction. The fact you cannot provide one shred of empirical evidence of your God and the atttributes that you give him renders him incapacitated. You are asking us to take it on faith that your God exists no different than other faiths who do the same with their Gods. Why is it that you are simply able to dismiss other gods with a simple wave of the hand yet cannot accept that others can do the same with your God?

Please provide sources for your assertion that your God provides uninterrupted happiness, joy, bliss, euphoria and peace? I have never met a human who has experienced any of these uninterrupted for their entire existence on this planet.

Science isn't supposed to be an adequate substiture for God and only a fool would claim so. However we as humans have the ability to experience happiness, joy, bliss, euphoria and peace by accepting life for what it is and living each day to the fullest. Simply put, we do not need God to realize or see the beauty of this planet or experience happiness etc through our relationships with other people.

As I have stated before God only exists within our minds. Your assertion that God is more real than the universe lies in your brain and not oustide of it in any measurable way. My skepticism may not equate truth, however the truths you speak of cannot be proven in any meaningful way and therefore can simply be dismissed as nonsense along with the beliefs in any other mythical being.

One thing I have realized as these sorts of debates get nowhere. Since the beginning of religion people have argued and argued and no one ever reaches a conclusion. Its really a waste of time. I think it's best not to debate about a superior being with someone who denies it. It's not my job to reveal God to you, it's his job. I am not a messenger or an ambassador for God.

The point is humans by nature are search of the same ultimate truth, at least that's what the Hindu scriptures say. No one wants misery and no one wants to suffer. If you are content with your life then I see no need to convince you of anything else.

One thing I am sure of is debates about whether or not God exist lead no where. I think it's best to debate about specific concepts.

Claiming if God does or does not exist is such a broad argument and there are so many different logical proofs either way. Where does one begin?

Those who have found the truth are so immersed in it's peace they don't feel the need to argue with others. They only help others out of compassion if those others are seekers.