Here I am more interested in what an FTA proponent can actually do with the physical premise, which we can take as given for the purpose of the discussion. Is "fine-tuning for life" in need of explanation? (The answer is not as uncontroversial as it might seem.) And are theistic explanations best suited for the job? — SophistiCat
I guess I don't see much difference between FTA and other forms of the teleological argument -- is that an unfair characterization, in your view? — Moliere
When the constants and boundary values of fundamental physics* are treated as free parameters of the model, only a narrow range of those values results in a universe where life as we know it is possible. — SophistiCat
In the book Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees offers the argument that six numbers have to be what they are in this universe so that we can live in it. — tim wood
The point is the fine tuning argument assumes life has to be life as we know it and that is where the fine tuning argument goes wrong. Different numbers lead to different types of universes, each with their own carbon-type element that could lead to life. The inhabitants of such universes could be making the same argument like the fine tuning argument without realizing that a different set of numbers led to our universe with carbon-based life-forms. — TheMadFool
The FTA starts with the observations that there exist sentient beings like us, and in order for these beings to exist the constraints on the universe are incredibly precise, and for all these precise criteria to happen becomes incredibly unlikely. And then asks for which hypothesis for these observations have a higher probability. — Rank Amateur
While our universe is fine-tuned for carbon life forms, other universes may be fine-tuned for silicon or iron or whathaveyou. Our universe may not be the only type that can harbor life.
What we have then is the denizens of each universe making a fine-tuning argument about ''lifr as we know it''. In short our universe isn't special enough as is made out to be by the FTA. — TheMadFool
In the book Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees offers the argument that six numbers have to be what they are in this universe so that we can live in it. But there's more. If those numbers were other than they are, then the universe itself would probably be short-lived. Stepping into very plausible conjecture, he argues that perhaps there have been lots (and lots (and lots...)...) of Universes that weren't quite right for us that came and went, until one came along that would support us.
Conjectural but reasonable physics, or a super natural being that presides over it all. What seems most reasonable to you? — tim wood
Is there something that cries out for an explanation? — SophistiCat
What I find most interesting in it however is the extend atheists and hard agnostics will go elevate science to religion in order to to avoid an acknowledgement that given our current actual provable science, design may well be the best hypothesis. — Rank Amateur
Despite the mathematical rigor that the argument requires (i.e. the Universe needs a specific set of constants, each of which need to "tweaked" to a specific number), the argument rests on the probabilistic absurdity of using a sample size of one. — Maw
I guess I don't see much difference between FTA and other forms of the teleological argument -- is that an unfair characterization, in your view? — Moliere
Now this has to be explained. — Antony Latham
Occam's razor leads me more to the more parsimonious solution - design. — Antony Latham
The probability of all the needed conditions is on the order of 52! — Rank Amateur
As an example - in the classic thought experiment: — Rank Amateur
Is this fine-tuning surprising? Is it unexpected? — SophistiCat
It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition - or the hope - that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one. — Jacques Monod
The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. — Albert Einstein
How do you calculate the probability - not of the card deck permutation, of course, but of the universe being life-supporting? Show your work, please. — SophistiCat
Explain your reasoning in this thought experiment. What if the card order was not the canonical order - would your answer be different? Why? — SophistiCat
There is no doubt that designer is the most logical answer to the FTA. The primary reason that there is any debate at all on that point is driven by a predisposition on many that the probability of God/supernatural designer is near zero. — Rank Amateur
This is half of what I believe. I'd just add that the primary reason there is any debate is that the predisposition for different persons is either for or against the proposition -- and the plausibility of these arguments has mostly to do with this belief rather than whatever rational merits the arguments claim to have.
It's the conclusion that matters, not the process of reasoning. — Moliere
It's a type of teleological argument, or argument from design. Among other examples probably the best-known are those having to do with biological design (e.g. Paley's watch analogy). And like with other teleological arguments, it seems to have a lot of intuitive appeal with some people, and yet when the argument is viewed skeptically, it turns out surprisingly hard to even give it a rigorous formulation, and few even try. — SophistiCat
I disagree - as per the deck of cards experiment. There is little doubt that design is the most probable answer for the FTA. — Rank Amateur
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.