The universe appears to be “fine-tuned”: the slightest variation beyond certain physical constants would not result in the universe as we understand it.
2. Thus, the universe as we understand it is an extremely unlikely event/series of events.
3. Any such extremely unlikely event/series of events is best explained not by natural processes—such as natural selection for explaining the presence of diverse life forms—but by intelligent design.
4. Given these two possibilities for explanation, intelligent design is the best explanation for the creation and nature of the universe. (3, 4 DS)
By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology. Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion, although he held that the two fields were not in conflict. — Wikipedia
It thus seems to be question-begging to call the existence of such events “fine-tuning,” as it implies design from the outset. These remarks apply to the universe as a whole as well, I think. I’d like to hear responses to this objection. — ModernPAS
Behe, Dembski, and others make the claim that, for example, life forms appear to be “irreducibly complex, — ModernPAS
1. The universe appears to be “fine-tuned”: the slightest variation beyond certain physical constants would not result in the universe as we understand it. — ModernPAS
For those so inclined, I think natural theology is justified in claiming that there's a prior cause. But what I think they're not entitled to claim is that this is something that can be proven. After all, for the believer, the Universe is evidence; that's what makes them believers! — Wayfarer
In other words, almost every event appears extremely unlikely from the perspective of some point in the distant past before that event. — ModernPAS
Behe, Dembski, and others make the claim that, for example, life forms appear to be “irreducibly complex,” such that they could not have developed from simpler forms, but must have been designed in their complexity from the start. — ModernPAS
But the whole point of the anthropic principle/fine-tuning argument is that the causal chain that leads to the development of living beings, really does seem to stretch right back to the 'singularity'. Opponents often say, well of course that's the case, otherwise we wouldn't be here to debate it! But I don't think that objection does justice to the magnitude of the mystery, which is the sense that, as scientist Freeman Dyson put it, 'the Universe knew we were coming'. — Wayfarer
So I think the issue seems to be that 'randomness' or 'chance' doesn't do justice to the order that science observes. But the question is, then, whether the only two choices are chance, on the one hand, or intentional design, on the other. And I think one thing that might be stated is that, whichever of the two obtain, or whether there are only two options, is not itself a scientific question. Natural science assumes the order of nature; I think it's a mistake to believe that it can, or should, explain that order. But even if it can't explain it, it's then a stretch to argue that therefore it's the result of intentional design. — Wayfarer
To state it succinctly, modern theories of "chance", which propose that the universe originated in quantum fluctuations, are simply incoherent. Space-time is understood as a property of the universe, which emerges with the universe. The quantum "fluctuations" which are responsible, as cause of, the universe's existence are necessarily prior to the existence of the universe. Such "fluctuations" without space or time are incoherent. In this case "fluctuation" is a term referring to an impossibility, activity without space or time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Let me give an example to make my point.
Natural selection holds that complex life-forms do not necessarily evolve from less complex forms by adding complexity to achieve a more sophisticated form of a particular mechanism-such as flagella for some bacteria.
I don't really see what additional mystery you are referring to here. Per the anthropic principle, we'd expect the universe to "know we were coming", because we'd only exist in such a universe. — Echarmion
In quantum physics, space and time are static givens, whereas under relativity they're dynamic properties. — Echarmion
An informal, heuristic meaning of the principle is the following: A state that only exists for a short time cannot have a definite energy. To have a definite energy, the frequency of the state must be defined accurately, and this requires the state to hang around for many cycles, the reciprocal of the required accuracy. — Wikipedia uncertainty principle
...I point out that given the volume of this planet almost entirely consists of conditions inimicable to life and, likewise, the volume of the observable universe is exponentially even more lifeless, it's patently unsound to conclude anything other than that the cosmos either is (A) "fine-tuned" for lifelessness or (B) not "fine-tuned" at all, but only appears "fine-tuned" due our self-serving/flattering cognitive biases (such as how we misrecognize that our scientific models...
writing this post for credit in a “Philosophy of Religion” class — ModernPAS
Let’s look at the premises. It seems to be true that the slightest variation beyond certain physical constants would not result in the universe as we understand it. Thus premise 2 appears to be correct. — ModernPAS
* It is actually not easy to articulate just what that sensitivity means. Most physical constants are real numbers that could hypothetically vary within an infinite range. If so, then there is no distinction between fine-tuning and coarse-tuning: any finite interval you care to choose would represent an infinitely small fraction of the full range. This consideration nullifies the intuitively impressive numerology that presenters of the fine-tuning argument usually bring to bear — SophistiCat
The mystery, or the problem, is that the Universe can't have 'known we were coming' because it's supposed to be vast ensemble of inorganic matter and energy. The very thing which Enlightenment rationalism strips out of the picture is intelligence, intention and goal-directedness which in all previous philosophy were assumed to have been provided by God. But the 'fine-tuning' argument seems to imply that the conditions for the production of complex matter and living beings were indeed instantiated or configured in the Cosmos well before any beings capable of intentionality evolved. And that sounds very much like the work of an intelligent agent. — Wayfarer
I don't think this is quite true. I believe that according to standard formulations of the uncertainty principle, energy and time are conjugate variables. This is due to the uncertainty relationship between time and frequency inherent within any Fourier transform. — Metaphysician Undercover
all this is encoded and predestined in those few numbers. This is extraordinary regardless of how devoid of life the rest of universe may be. Just as a zip format for compression of information probably is already violating several of our physics, mathematics, and logic laws. — Zelebg
Wholeheartedly agree with this characterization. What we do know is that complex systems can and do achieve various stable states. If we don't even know what all the variables are, we really can't assume there is anything particularly unique about this specific one.Agree with your assessment of the first premise. Assumes the answer, it also assumes we are at an end point in our understanding of our universe or even what universes with the slight variations of physical constraints would look like either. — Mark Dennis
Wholeheartedly agree with this characterization. What we do know is that complex systems can and do achieve various stable states. If we don't even know what all the variables are, we really can't assume there is anything particularly unique about this specific one.
What's emerges as extraordinary is that people like you, presumably educated and smart, find this extraordinary.
It only sounds like the work of an intelligent agent if we apply the Copernican principle. If we apply the anthropic principle, the mystery entirely disappears. — Echarmion
Emergence of consciousness and life from inanimate matter is unremarkable then? Perhaps that's exactly what you would expect to get when you combine several types of particles with few simple properties? — Zelebg
Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".
Nagel’s starting point is not simply that he finds materialism partial or unconvincing, but that he himself has a metaphysical view or vision of reality that just cannot be accommodated within materialism. This vision is that the appearance of conscious beings in the universe is somehow what it is all for; that ‘Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.’ 1
It only sounds like the work of an intelligent agent if we apply the Copernican principle. If we apply the anthropic principle, the mystery entirely disappears. The universe is made for us because we live in it, not the other way round.
Suppose whatever arbitrary numbers are used to define those constants and laws, still we somehow end up with some kind of universe and some kind of sentient beings living in it. No more fine tuning mystery, but the mystery remains, and it's an old one everyone agrees we are clueless about - emergence of consciousness and life from inanimate matter, driven only through combinatorics of several particles with few simple properties. There is nothing anthropic about it, except that it's kind of wicked. — Zelebg
We have a couple of good ideas about how life came about, though we cannot decide on a specific one with certainty. We aren't clueless about it.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.