Wow...still at this kind of thing, Devans.

Okay...I admire your tenacity.

Question:

Any chance we can get a P1 and P2 that gets us to"

Therefore, the universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner?

I cannot see how you got there.

.. and your Ark. — 180 Proof

Still building it in my back yard. And good luck with your alcoholism!

:party:

An infinite regress of fine tuner’s is impossible* — Devans99

Why not? What if each fine tuner (fine tuna?) is indexed by an integer, like so:

$\dots, -4, \ -3, \ -2, \ -1, \ 0, \ 1, \ 2, \ 3, \ 4, \ 5, \dots$

Each tuner tunes the tuner directly to their right. So -4 tunes -3; -3 tunes -2; and so forth.

You will note that every tuner is tuned; and that there is no untuned tuner

You and William Lane Craig should meditate on this model.

:snicker: :up:

Just thought I'd point out that your D still doesn't follow. :D

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist — Devans99

D. So the infinitude in A can't be numbered so

3. An infinite regress of fine tuner’s is impossible* — Devans99

4. So there must exist an uncaused fine tuner who’s environment is in itself not fine tuned — Devans99

If the universe of this very special fine-tuner isn't itself fine-tuned for life then how did it ever come into existence as life? I guess that a universe has the right conditions for life aka fine-tuned universe doesn't imply a conscious fine-tuner. If that's the case then why can't this universe be the one that didn't have fine-tuner?

Also, what you said above contradicts what you say below:

The two possible reasons are: a massive fluke or a fine tuner. The second is much more probable than the first IMO. — Devans99

Why not? What if each fine tuner (fine tuna?) is indexed by an integer, like so:

…,−4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,……,−4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,…

Each tuner tunes the tuner directly to their right. So -4 tunes -3; -3 tunes -2; and so forth.

You will note that every tuner is tuned; and that there is no untuned tuner

You and William Lane Craig should meditate on this model — fishfry

I don't know if what you said makes sense. If there is no first tuner, then there can't be a second or a third, etc.? An infinite regress here precludes a first fine-tuner and so there can't be a second or a third and so on.

Using the infinity of integers doesn't succeed in solving the problem that there is no first fine-tuner.

Using the infinity of integers doesn't succeed in solving the problem that there is no first fine-tuner. — TheMadFool

Why not? To me it seems like this is the solution to the first mover problem. Everyone's moved yet there is no first mover.

What law of nature says that movers or tuners must be modeled by the natural numbers but not the integers?

What law of nature says that [causal relations] must be modeled by the natural numbers but not the integers? — fishfry

:up:

Why not? To me it seems like this is the solution to the first mover problem. Everyone's moved yet there is no first mover.

What law of nature says that movers or tuners must be modeled by the natural numbers but not the integers? — fishfry

Z = {...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3,...} or Z = {...-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,..} or Z = {...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2,..}

Notice that though Z is the same set we can list it in different ways: the actual number listed in the first is -3, the second lists -4 and the last lists -2. As you can see this implies that there is no first element and we can arbitrarily choose any number to be explicit in the list as shown above.

I find that Infinite regress is usually employed on the basis that there is no first in a sequence, the fact of which then implies something else whatever that may be. It boils down to a belief that there must be a first. It makes sense why a first is required; a first represents a beginning and if there is no beginning how is the now definable. Consider the fact that if we were to add we would never reach the end because the positive half of integers goes to infinity. Similarly, since you used integers, consider negative infinity. To reach any point from negative infinity we need to add but quite unfortunately adding any finite number to negative infinity still yields negative infinity which in plain language means no point in a sequence that "begins" at negative infinity can ever be reached. This is, to my understanding, the point of an infinite regress.

Getting back to your use of integers, any point in the sequence can be considered a first and that means -4 is a first AND - 3 AND -2 is a first which is a contradiction, right. In other words it has no first and that means the problem with it is the same problem an infinite regress faces to wit that we can't reach any point after negative infinity.

Life (e.g. human being) fine-tunes her models of the universe - otherwise known as reflective equilibrium, a rarefied, special (cognitive) mode of adaptive behavior. — 180 Proof

Rubbish. The universe must be life supporting, from the get-go (the Big Bang) in a fundamental way (the standard model and four forces must be fined tuned). So there is simply no room/time for adaptive/evolutionary behaviour before this - there is no 'before' to do it in.

Explain why this "uncaused fine tuner" is not its own environment aka "the universe" (or nature itself). — 180 Proof

I'd imagine it is in an environment of its own somewhere beyond spacetime. But that environment cannot be fine tuned in itself, leading to the conclusion it must be something special.

Why multiply inexplicable (thereby question begging) entities needlessly? — 180 Proof

Because its a proof and I have to cover all the logical possibilities.

…,−4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,… — fishfry

All infinite causal regresses are impossible as I pointed out in the OP:

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist

In your example, imagine trying to define the negative integers starting at the left '...'. Its impossible - there is no start point.

If the universe of this very special fine-tuner isn't itself fine-tuned for life then how did it ever come into existence as life? I guess that a universe has the right conditions for life aka fine-tuned universe doesn't imply a conscious fine-tuner. If that's the case then why can't this universe be the one that didn't have fine-tuner? — TheMadFool

It never came into existence, it exists permanently, timeless and uncaused. So it must not need a fine tuned environment.

It looks highly probably that this universe did have a fine tuner though; there are about 20 constants that need to be at or near there current values for life to be possible.

:lol: :clap:

Your lack of counter arguments is illuminating.

Just thought I'd point out that your D still doesn't follow. :D

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist
— Devans99

D. So the infinitude in A can't be numbered so — jorndoe

I am amazed you are disagreeing with me. It does not matter if it the elements can't be numbered (which they can), all elements are directly or indirectly dependent on the missing first element; so the whole thing cannot exist. An infinite causal regress is like a house without any foundation.

Returning to a question I think I asked you earlier:

Do you believe a greater than any finite number of days has passed?

If yes, what is your justification for believing so?

1. The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner — Devans99

I agree that if one assumes the universe is fine-tuned for life, this entails a fine-tuner. The problem is that you cannot show that the universe was likely to have been fine-tuned for life. Your unstated premise is that life was a design objective.

Life exists as a consequence of the universe's properties. Had the properties differed, there would be no life. So what? Just because something exists does not mean it's existence was planned.

In general, suppose the universe had a different set of properties, and this resulted in objects of type X. The mere existence of X objects does not imply X objects were a design objective rather than merely being an unintended, accidental consequence.

Question:

Any chance we can get a P1 and P2 that gets us to"

Therefore, the universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner? — Frank Apisa

I ask my question again...because your initial premise seems like nothing more than begging the question. You are essentially starting your argument with: There is a god.

If you wanted to beg the question of God why assume the universe had to be "fine-tuned" from the beginning? God could just as easily have ordained the spontaneous emergence of ordered complexity....

It does not matter if it the elements can't be numbered — Devans99

Then you'll need a proof without going by that.
FYI, not that it matters much, I harbor no particular personal belief either way.
I'm just pointing out that your suggested proof still doesn't work.

D. So the infinitude in A can't be numbered so — jorndoe

I ask my question again...because your initial premise seems like nothing more than begging the question. You are essentially starting your argument with: There is a god. — Frank Apisa

Did you not read the section of the OP about fine tuning?

If you wanted to beg the question of God why assume the universe had to be "fine-tuned" from the beginning? God could just as easily have ordained the spontaneous emergence of ordered complexity.... — Pantagruel

I do not believe God is omnipotent. He can't just wave his hand and it be so. He must have generated the universe from something. The Big Bang was probably caused by some sort of device that led to a chain reaction causing all the matter/energy in the universe and the emergence of the 4 forces and the standard model. The device was specified such that a life supporting universe would be the result (IE God did all the calculations first and designed an appropriate device to generate a life supporting universe).

Hm. Wouldn't the supposed fine-tuner of the universe have to be uniquely fine-tuned to create fine-tuned universes? Surely can't be mere coincidence...? :D

What's with the universal self-elevating self-importance anyway?

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth

By heat death, there will be an unfathomable amount of time (even compared to 14 billion years), ruled by the lonely photon in deep cold. Heavier elements that came out of supernovae will have decayed, and perhaps even black holes will have "evaporated" (Hawking radiation).
The universe seems mostly "designed" or "fine-tuned" as/for vast, open (increasing) spaces, lots of radiation, rocks here and there, gases and suns, maybe some massive gravity wells whose gravity are so strong that light can't escape — and freezing lonely photons.

I agree that if one assumes the universe is fine-tuned for life, this entails a fine-tuner. The problem is that you cannot show that the universe was likely to have been fine-tuned for life. Your unstated premise is that life was a design objective. — Relativist

It is extremely unlikely for a randomly specified universe to support life. There are about 20 fine tuned constants that have to be at or near their current values for life to be supported.

In general, suppose the universe had a different set of properties, and this resulted in objects of type X. The mere existence of X objects does not imply X objects were a design objective. — Relativist

But X in this case is life - the prime reason anyone would create a universe. Consider what the chances are that the universe is a creation. Let us take it as 50%/50% (unbiased). If the universe is a creation, then it was created by something intelligent. What other goal would an intelligent creator have apart from the creation of life (=information)?

Then there is the universe supports life by accident. Say a billion to one chance.

Which is the more probable explanation:

- A 50% chance that the universe was created for life
- A billion to one chance that it is life supporting by accident

God would not create a universe that is dead for the vast majority of its existence, he would create something self renewing, see:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7415/circular-time-revisited/p1

You should ask yourself what are the ingredients needed for life. First a stable, very long lasting energy source is required. It is difficult to see how one could do better than the stars. Then living surfaces are required, again it is difficult to see how one could do better than the rocky planets.

A game you can play is to pretend to be God and say 'how would I design a universe fit for intelligent life?'. I don't believe you will come up with any model better than our universe.

Wouldn't the supposed fine-tuner of the universe have to be uniquely fine-tuned to create fine-tuned universes? Surely can't be mere coincidence...? — jorndoe

That is the point of my argument - God cannot be fine tuned and must be uncreated - so he must be something very special.

This reminds me so much of a guy I used to debate over in the old New York Times forum, ABUZZ.

The guy was absolutely positive that a god exists (the god he envisioned, of course) and was determined to present an argument that could be used to support, "Therefore there is a GOD."

The problem with his argument...which is the same as the problem with yours, is that he was trying to do what Aquinas did with his first argument...an ontological argument that depends completely on begging the question.

His didn't work...Aquinas' didn't...and yours doesn't.

One cannot get to "at least one god exists" using logic, reason, math, or science. It simply cannot be done. In fact, one cannot even get to "it is more likely that at least one god exists than tahat there are none" using those means.

The strong atheists essentially try to use your argument in reverse. They fail also.

BOTTOM LINE: If you want to assert that a GOD exists...do it. Just assert it...don't try to sell it. Same thing goes for the atheists. If they want to assert there are no gods...do it. Just don't try to sell it.

Everything works out so much better that way.

1. So you agree infinite causal regresses are impossible? (see the argument in the OP).
2. So all causal regresses in existence must be finite causal regresses
3. That implies the existence of at least one uncaused cause.
4. To be able to cause something without being effected in anyway requires intelligence

Then we have the start of time. Do you believe that a greater than any number of finite days have elapsed? If no then you must agree that a start of time is required. That also requires an intelligent, uncaused cause.

Then the fact the universe is not in equilibrium means the universe cannot just be a dumb mechanical system; there must be something intelligent and permanent in the universe that is and always has kept us out of equilibrium.

Then we have the fine tuning argument in the OP.

Then we have the huge, suspicious, looking explosion that is the Big Bang.

When these arguments are taken together, one has no choice but to assign a high probability that there is in fact an intelligent creator of the universe.

I do not believe God is omnipotent. He can't just wave his hand and it be so. He must have generated the universe from something. The Big Bang was probably caused by some sort of device that led to a chain reaction causing all the matter/energy in the universe and the emergence of the 4 forces and the standard model. The device was specified such that a life supporting universe would be the result (IE God did all the calculations first and designed an appropriate device to generate a life supporting universe). — Devans99

Not "atemporal", then. "Atemporal" mind doesn't make sense anyway.

God would not create a universe that is dead for the vast majority of its existence, he would create something self renewing — Devans99

You can come up with falsifiability that we can go out and check tomorrow? (y) (the more the better)

1. So you agree infinite causal regresses are impossible? (see the argument in the OP). — Devans99

You'll have to come up with a different argument for that ↑ one. I'll suggest that you'll have to go by evidence.

Anyway, "the universe turns out fine-tuned to be exactly what it is" doesn't really say much. Kind of tautological. An estimate would have to compare against all possible worlds (cf modal realism). Not sure how you'd go about that.

1. So you agree infinite causal regresses are impossible? (see the argument in the OP).
2. So all causal regresses in existence must be finite causal regresses
3. That implies the existence of at least one uncaused cause.
4. To be able to cause something without being effected in anyway requires intelligence

Then we have the start of time. Do you believe that a greater than any number of finite days have elapsed? — Devans99

I do not do "believing" on these kinds of issues, Devans.

They are beyond human understanding...and any "belief" would be nothing more than a blind guess.

I'd be more than willing to flip a coin on this...if you truly see any value to it.

If no then you must agree that a start of time is required. That also requires an intelligent, uncaused cause.

Then the fact the universe is not in equilibrium means the universe cannot just be a dumb mechanical system; there must be something intelligent and permanent in the universe that is and always has kept us out of equilibrium.

Then we have the fine tuning argument in the OP.

Then we have the huge, suspicious, looking explosion that is the Big Bang.

When these arguments are taken together, one has no choice but to assign a high probability that there is in fact an intelligent creator of the universe.

Anyone truly assessing the totality of the evidence for and against the notion of an "intelligent creator of the universe" should come away with a very loud, "I DO NOT KNOW."

To suppose that one "has no choice" but to conclude one way or the other...or that is is "highly probable" one way or the other...is absurd.

That is a tough one for people like you to accept...just as it is a very tough one for the atheists in my other forum to accept.

Both you and the others like you...and those atheists that I mentioned...would do well to get over it...and accept the "I DO NOT KNOW."

Not "atemporal", then. "Atemporal" mind doesn't make sense anyway. — jorndoe

Something must exist permanently (or else there would be nothing) and nothing can exist permanently in time (it would have no initial state so no subsequent states). 2+2=4, something atemporal is the only possible answer. I can't explain exactly how atemporal works but it is a logical requirement.

I have already brought to your attention the large number of arguments that there is a start of time, so these also points to the existence of something atemporal.

We know that atemporal things exist in our universe (photons) - so there is empirical evidence for the atemporal.

An estimate would have to compare against all possible worlds (cf modal realism). Not sure how you'd go about that. — jorndoe

If you were to write a computer program that generated universes at random (random initial conditions, forces and standard model), then the vast, vast majority of such universes would be lifeless I think.