This is part of a series of posts where I subscribe and respond to a widely advertised theistic educational course.
It’s Day Three, and we hit another classic debate point, “fine tuning“. The argument, or at least the pertinent part.
If the universe had expanded a little faster, the matter would have sprayed out into space like fine mist from a water bottle – so fast that a gazillion particles of dust would speed into infinity and never even form a single star.
If the universe had expanded just a little slower, the material would have dribbled out like big drops of water, then collapsed back where it came from by the force of gravity.
A little too fast, and you get a meaningless spray of fine dust. A little too slow, and the whole universe collapses back into one big black hole.
Much like many (some would say all) attempts by theists to prove something that isn’t true using science, it’s a rehash of a well explored and largely dismissed argument (read: God of the Gaps). The argument here is generally referred to as “fine tuning”, the theory that the conditions we currently find ourselves in are so specific that they could only have come about as a result of considered, deliberate design.
Later on in the email you find the following.
The surprising thing is just how narrow the difference is. To strike the perfect balance between too fast and too slow, the force, something that physicists call “the Dark Energy Term” had to be accurate to one part in ten with 120 zeros.
If you wrote this as a decimal, the number would look like this:
0.000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000001
Wow, that’s a big number. The universe must be really finely tuned. Well, no. The fundamental problem with this argument is one we come across regularly in theistic debates. The selective application of rules and criteria. Here we see that a small change in the strength of gravity would mean that the big bang would not have happened as it did. Fine. But that’s assuming you change one of the fundamental rules of the universe and leave the others in tact. So yes, if you choose to arbitrarily change the laws of the universe so they fit your beliefs, you can make a strong argument.
This particular argument concentrates on one of the four forces (or “fundamental interactions”, the others being the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force) and changing it. This would seem to make a strong case for a finely tuned universe, but further examination reveals that this is not the case. For example, Roni Harnik, Graham D. Kribs, Gilad Perez have examined the effect on the universe if there was no weak force at all. The conclusion was that the universe wouldn’t be vastly different. If the universe was fine tuned, one would reasonably expect the removal of one of the 4 fundamental interactions to have a catastrophic result. It doesn’t.
In an attempt to proactively negate a common argument against “fine tuning” the author goes on to cover the concept of “infinite universes”.
To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.
I’m afraid not, and this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. But hey, that’s not stopped them before. These are theories, unconfirmed theories. Scientists can speculate based on a limited amount of supporting information, but there’s no empirical evidence and testing the theory is incredibly difficult (if not impossible). No one is trying to pass this off as fact, unlike creationists who try to pass the Bible, which can be tested (to a certain degree, and fails many of those tests), as fact.
It is indeed truly amazing how the conditions are ‘just’ right for so many things. While I agree that that does not constitute a scientific proof for the existence of God, it is the simplest explanation on the market: these conditions were chosen and not just random.
Moreover it is not valid to assume your own conclusion in an argument (“attempts by theists to prove something that isn’t true“).
I also think that you are giving too much credence to this so-called “god of the gaps” argument which sounds like a Dawkinsism and is little more than a catchy phrase. In any case it is also unfair to dismiss any argument because it is a “rehash” (that doesn’t affect its truth) nor one that is “largely dismissed” (read: by people who agree with me). If it is so easy to refute, do so!
In fact you admit the opposite: that “if you choose to arbitrarily change the laws of the universe …, you can make a strong argument.” The “to fit your beliefs” bit I omitted is irrelevant. The point remains even if it may also be true that if (according to scientists XYZ) other numbers change it may not affect things that drastically.
In fact a deeper question is raised here. Just why do these constants exist at all? If everything really is totally random, how does light know it has to travel at the speed of light? What I am getting at once again, is a prior question to one that science asks. Science uses induction to obtain these values. Philosophy uses deduction to recognise that if things really are bound by “laws” of nature… where did these “laws” come from? A lawmaker anyone?
‘God of the gaps’, as a term, has been around since the nineteenth century. It was, if I recall correctly, coined by a British theologian – as an example of the kind of theology he didn’t want! He saw, even then, that science would shrink the gaps, and that god would have to shrink accordingly.
Your last paragraph (sorry, but I must be honest) is terrible. ‘Random’ just means, usually, ‘subject to multiple inputs resulting in a system we can no longer call deterministic (meaning ‘within our capacity to predict’)’. Like flipping a die – really, the face it lands on is determined by the interactions of the coin with your hand, the air molecules, the Earth’s gravitational field, etc. The coin doesn’t ‘know’ which face it will land on.
As for ‘why are there constants, and why are they what they are’, well, that’s the big question in physics. Congrats, you’ve reached the limits of what we know. If you stick god in there, though, that’s just the argument from ignorance.
Quick lesson in linguistics: in science, a law is ‘a mathematical description of an observed relationship in nature’. It’s not like a justice-system type law, which is conceived of, implemented, and obeyed or not, *by choice*, by human beings; it’s not that atoms ‘choose’ to obey the Laws of Physics; it’s that the laws of physics describe what it is atoms always do. It’s the exact opposite of what the word law originally meant, which is confusing.
All that really boils down to, though, is that the ‘Laws of Nature’ do not require a ‘lawmaker’. Wrong kind of law.
And here’s an important philosophical point: the answer ‘god did it’ is indeed the simplest one to any given question; however, it does not really answer any questions at all. It tells us nothing about the universe, and we are left with ‘how did god do it?’, which is what we use science for.
Just saying ‘god did it’ is not an explanation.
if i told you history was a lie, and mount rushmore was a result of billions of years of rain, snow and storms, gradually wearing down the mountain and by random chance, it now looks like 4 former presidents, would you take me seriously? so if i told you a universe was made with every law and quantity perfect by random chance, how does that sound more reasonable than the above scenario?
Since we can’t perform an experiment that proves God’s existence, science would instead have us accept what is known to be impossible. Until we can demonstrate how physical laws, intelligence, etc. came from non such, then it seems they would have us swallow the concept that it is simply a natural tendency of nothing to spew out form and substance.
I understand the plight, it is not science’s habit to make assumptions – and since God can not be determined it must be left out of the equation. What the scientist fails to see is that by not making an assumption, one is still made. The refusal to accept a creating force is not far enough removed from the radical insistence that there isn’t one and the resulting acceptance of ‘something from nothing’ is completely opposed to logic and is nothing short of accepting miracles.
Todays atheistic scientist shows more faith than a Christian could ever muster.
I suppose it’s irrelevant, no length of debating will provide belief. When i was an atheist nothing could prove God’s presence. When i became a believer there was nothing that didn’t unequestionably verify it.
Regarding intelligence, I’d advise you to check out evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution provides a fascinating explanation of how life came to be as it is (the fact that it is supported by evidence is nice, too). Abiogenesis explains how the first replicating, varying units (i.e. life-forms) came into being. Fascinating stuff.
As for the basic laws of physics, well, the only people suggesting it’s either God or just some unknown random-chance process are creationists. Take a look at Victor Stenger’s works for some insight into cosmology.
Chew on this: matter is really just ‘frozen’ energy; energy is really just a condition of the space-time continuum; the space-time continuum is…well, who knows. Let’s all become physicists and find out!
That ‘more faith’ thing is interesting. Most scientists will either say ‘here is an explanation’ or ‘we don’t know’ to most questions. I don’t think it takes much faith to say ‘I don’t know’. There’s also the ‘every other explanation has been naturalistic, so the next one will be too’ position. I don’t think that takes a lot of faith.
You know, your last sentence sounds an awful lot like confirmation bias…
also..
you say ‘The selective application of rules and criteria.’ is the problem.
exactly!
Everything containing logic from our experience descended from a mind. Reasons imply ‘reasoning’.
It’s quite a ‘selective application of rules and criteria’ to feel that this breaks down once nature is considered.
O.K., how about this?
If the laws of the universe weren’t capable of producing conscious life then we wouldn’t be here to study it and comment on it.