.. and your Ark. — 180 Proof
An infinite regress of fine tuner’s is impossible* — Devans99
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
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
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
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? — fishfry
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
Explain why this "uncaused fine tuner" is not its own environment aka "the universe" (or nature itself). — 180 Proof
Why multiply inexplicable (thereby question begging) entities needlessly? — 180 Proof
…,−4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,… — fishfry
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
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 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.1. The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner — Devans99
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
It does not matter if it the elements can't be numbered — Devans99
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
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
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
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
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
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
God would not create a universe that is dead for the vast majority of its existence, he would create something self renewing — Devans99
1. So you agree infinite causal regresses are impossible? (see the argument in the OP). — Devans99
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
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.
Not "atemporal", then. "Atemporal" mind doesn't make sense anyway. — jorndoe
An estimate would have to compare against all possible worlds (cf modal realism). Not sure how you'd go about that. — jorndoe
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.