Theological Fine Tuning

[remez]

More to the point, your claim that "most plausibly science has recently (past century) kicked the universe out of the category of the eternal" is not a soundly-reasoned conclusion based on the evidence we have.

Hence my quotation of the V in BGV. That was just one piece of evidence let me add some more…..

Further evidence vs your one single Planck second… we have……. 8,077,190,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck seconds of evidence and expanding universe most plausibly inferring a beginning.

Also………….
CMB, second law of thermodynamics, GTR, temp ripples in the CMB seeding galaxies, redshift, all of the spacetime theorems specifically the BGV theorem, observed time dilation in gamma-ray bursts, SBBM, the decay times of distant supernova light intensity, H-He abundance, inflation, etc.

From the cosmologists themselves….

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Hawking and Krauss each just wrote a book purporting their theories to the cause of an universe that began to exist.

Believe me I could keep right on going.

So…………………

How can you conclude that all of that is nullified by your single Planck epoch of “we don’t know”?

Rather than quotemining Vilenkin's opinion, let's look at the actual science

Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf

"Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary. This is the chief result of our paper."

This is consistent with the fact that relativity is unable to model the universe during the Planck epoch and the fact that the Big Bang model only describes the expansion of the universe after the Planck epoch.

Your quote is perfect……………..Yes I said perfect.

There is so much there to comment on……

…… Read that quote again carefully. You are not understanding what you are reading and you just quoted it. Let me try please it is right there….. Whatever the possibilities for the BOUNDARY …….. It’s the BOUNDARY that exists unaffected by the possibilities . That BOUNDARY indicates a past finite universe. Back up to the beginning of that section. This new physic you're putting your hope into will only address possibilities and will do nothing to affect the existence of that BOUNDARY. I’ve been telling you this all along. There is no gap to affect the BOUNDARY. You are claiming that your gap for the possibilities is a gap for the BOUNDARY. Do you see it now?

Not taking any chances …. Here is the first paragraph of that section

Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work [8] in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the BOUNDARY of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case)

They, the possibilities, are past incomplete….Yes. But when extended into the past……they reach the BOUNDARY of the inflating region of spacetime in a FINITE proper time.

……..You chided me to look at the science….and you quotemined that perfect quote. Did you read the rest? I did years ago. I love this stuff. The math works whether relativity works or not. It is irrelevant. Thus it does not matter that relativity breaks down. A new physics will be needed to understand the epoch….yes….I completely get that, but as I explained earlier I don’t think it’s actually possible for science to get it. I understood that when they published the paper. But how does your quote extend to we don’t know that it began? The paper is basically saying regardless what happens in the epoch the universe most plausibly began. We may not know the how but we know it began. Just like we do not know how life began but that does not stop us from concluding that life began.

…….It certainly was not his opinion, it was the conclusion. Supported by the math.

………That paper you referenced is amazing. It represents their great work and conclusion. It was written in 2003 after they finalized their theorem. Read this more recent account………………

http://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

….in it reaffirms that the universe began. That is all I’m trying to establish with you. The universe most plausibly began to exist.

…….In it he presents his updated thoughts on other models including his thoughts on theology, which of course he does not agree. It is a great read. His approach now is trying to establish a beginning without a cause. Which means he is after premise 1 not premise 2 of the KCA. He still affirms the universe began, premise 2. Enjoy.

If you are going to attempt to attack premise 1 then different issues come into play. I’m trying to establish that there is scientific evidence that the universe began.

All you are saying there is “give science more time and we will find that the universe is eternal.”

No, I am saying that we don't know either way.

Yes I totally get what you are trying to say. And again here is why you are wrong. Your statement represents your conclusion to your reasoning. You are reasoning that since we don’t know what happened in the epoch then we don’t now that the universe most plausibly began. That reasoning is wrong. What happened in the epoch does not change the conclusion that the universe most plausibly began. There is no gap there to the conclusion. The only gap there is in your reasoning. It is a gap of your own making. Hence………..

One cannot interpret the limitations of our physical models as meaning that "the laws of nature began to exist".

I’m not interpreting from the limitations (your gap) of our physical models. I’m reasonably concluding from all that we do know. Hence no gap. You see…... this gap….. you keep saying that theists fill with God..... is actually a gap of your own creation….. that you actually fill with….. a blind faith science. We can keep playing with our models, but that will not change the overwhelming plausibly of a past finite universe.

As I explained before. All you are saying there is “give science more time and we will find that the universe is eternal.” It is a complete science of the gaps fallacy. As unreasonable as saying “Give me more time and I will scientifically find a way to give birth to my mother. After all we don’t know (gap) all there is to know about DNA.”

However it is the perfect fallacy for you, who cling to the self-refuting notion that science answers everything …..because it is a fallacy that will never go away because science will never be able to answer it with the complete certainty. It is the unrelated gap that just keeps on giving and giving..........

And in that gap.......there be models.
And
I almost forgot…....…We can always berate the theists for playing…..God of the gaps……with our gap.

You poor thing; you're so persecuted.

You mock yourself there. You are operating in a make believe gap.

I’m don’t feel persecuted when you guys make that error, I actually find it quite entertaining to expose it. Sometimes they actually get it.

 

[remez]

.......BTW your use of the Schopenhauer there in post 31 is doing the same thing by mixing the LCA and KCA. It's a common mistake.

bump for juma

I was hoping someone would address it.

So educate me juma. Show me where my tone exceeded his. You're on.

Where was I wrong?

I know you're not talking to me because you're probably in a huff, but I just want to briefly say that I do sympathise with anyone who mixes up the LCA and the KLA. I myself often get confused as to which is about elves and which one is about hobgoblins. Also, has anyone mentioned the KFC? It's a finger lickin' good argument.

As you were. Carry on. Don't worry about not engaging with me. I forgive you.

Yes, I've heard of KFC. Not really a big fan.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course his premise reflects an understanding of theism -- it understands that theism is based on special pleading fallacies. His argument tries to draw theists' attention to these; but of course theists are resistant, and will think however fallaciously they need to think in order to avoid seeing what's staring them in the face.

His “argument” had nothing to do with special pleading there. I clearly pointed out his reflection of theism was backwards. Theists do not assert what he says we assert there. That’s all.

I'm not following. CC wrote:

"Theists tell us that the Universe is so fine tuned, there must have been a creative mind to account for that. It cannot have happened by chance.".​

Are you saying theists don't tell us that? Later in your reply to me you wrote:

"A theist formally argues that the best explanation for existence of the fine-tuning we observe is design."​

That sounds to me like what you're saying is pretty close to what CC said you guys say. If there's some vital distinction I'm missing, please point it out. Is it just that CC said "must" and you said "best"? I think there are plenty of theists who say "must".

You and Cheerful Charlie are using the word "universe" in two different ways. He's using it to mean "everything". You're using it to mean "everything on one side of an arbitrary border in my mind, a line I can use as an excuse to shut down chains of reasoning any time they threaten to cross it." You put planets and people and so forth on the "universe" side of your mental border, and you put God on the other side, the "not universe" side. Cheerful Charlie doesn't do that. Let us therefore discard the word "universe", since it has become a hindrance to clarity.

Then he should have been addressing pantheism and not theism. To a Biblical theist the universe is all of physical reality, the space-time continuum and all therein. A theist asserts that God transcends the universe. This is a common understanding in the context of theism and philosophy….. his chosen context. So if he is trying to make an argument against theism he should address theism….Right?

Huh? He is addressing theism. It isn't pantheists who say fine-tuning implies design. He's addressing theism, and he's pointing out that you guys make an arbitrary distinction between the part of reality you call "physical reality, the space-time continuum and all therein", and the part of reality you'd call "God, and the rest of non-physical reality". You appear to be applying different reasoning rules to the two parts. That's why we charge you with special pleading.

Let us instead use the word "reality". If God is real, then He/She/It qualifies as a part of reality, yes? "Reality" means all real things.

I have no problem with the term reality. But understand this common contextual understanding, theism asserts that the physical realty of the universe is obviously a created subset of a larger transcendent reality.

Yeah, we get that. What does "physical" mean to you, that you think the distinction between the "physical" part and the "nonphysical" part is grounds to apply different reasoning rules to the two parts?

You are welcome to put god within the universe, but you wouldn’t be referring to theism, you would be referring pantheism. It is a clear common distinction. If you want to find error with it then go right ahead. But it would be straw man to posit theism as pantheism. And CC was clearly addressing theism.

Who me? I don't "put god within the universe"; I'm the guy who discarded the word "universe" as it's a source of unclear arguments.

If the subset of reality on the left side of the border in your mind requires fine-tuning in order for thinking animals to exist in it,

A theist does not require fine-tuning for animals to exist. That’s absurd. A theist formally argues that the best explanation for existence of the fine-tuning we observe is design.

I'm not following you. "A theist does not require fine-tuning for animals to exist. That’s absurd."? Huh? In post #46 you wrote:

By “fine-tuning” one typically means that the actual values assumed by these constants or quantities in question are such that small deviations from those values would render the universe life-prohibiting.​

That sounds to me like what you're saying is fine-tuning is required for animals to exist. If it's not required for animals to exist then how do you figure small deviations from those values would render the universe life-prohibiting? If there's some vital distinction I'm missing, please point it out.

If "physical reality" doesn't need those constants to be what they are to have animals, then how are the constants fine-tuned? You might as well say Sirius being 8.6 light years away is fine-tuned because it isn't 8.5 light years away.

 

[bigfield]

BOUNDARY

As the paper makes clear, this "boundary" exists in some inflationary models. More specifically, the authors deal with a single frame of reference in Minkowski spacetime. Since the laws of relativity break down during the Planck epoch, Minkowski spacetime does not model the universe during the Planck epoch.

 

[ruby sparks]

Certainly, the suggestion that the universe had a beginning is an option, and not a daft one. We could provisionally agree, for the sake of argument, that it had, as far as I am concerned.

 

[bilby]

Certainly, the suggestion that the universe had a beginning is an option, and not a daft one. We could provisionally agree, for the sake of argument, that it had, as far as I am concerned.

For the sake of argument, perhaps.

It would be premature to accept it as a certainty. Or even a likelihood.

But for the sake of argument, why not?

 

[bigfield]

Certainly, the suggestion that the universe had a beginning is an option, and not a daft one. We could provisionally agree, for the sake of argument, that it had, as far as I am concerned.

It's not the only premise that would need to be provisionally accepted.

Borrowing from  Kalam cosmological argument:

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
Therefore
C1: The universe has a cause

P3: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful
P4 (C1): The universe has a cause
C2: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists
​

The truth of P1 and P2 are both unknown; we would need to accept both provisionally in order to accept C1.

P3 is special pleading, which renders C2 invalid even if P1 and P2 are true.

 

[Lion IRC]

No it's not special pleading because "personal" means intentional.

If the cause of the universe beginning can be likened to a light switch being turned on (or off) then the switch can't spontaneously turn itself on - because that would beg the question why it didn't turn itself on sooner than 13.7B years ago.

And it can't be an involuntary (impersonal) light switch because cause necessarily implies contingency. Agent/Mechanism

The cause must be personal in the sense that it is the voluntary, decisive trigger that does not depend on a prior deterministic cause.

Either the universe has always existed or it was caused by intent or it came into existence by pure random chance.

 

[bilby]

No it's not special pleading because "personal" means intentional.

If the cause of the universe beginning can be likened to a light switch being turned on (or off) then the switch can't spontaneously turn itself on - because that would beg the question why it didn't turn itself on sooner than 13.7B years ago.

And it can't be an involuntary (impersonal) light switch because cause necessarily implies contingency. Agent/Mechanism

The cause must be personal in the sense that it is the voluntary, decisive trigger that does not depend on a prior deterministic cause.

Either the universe has always existed or it was caused by intent or it came into existence by pure random chance.

So you can think of three possibilities; but refuse to consider two thirds of them.

And you think that people who reject one third - and by far the least parsimonious third at that - are unreasonably closed minded.

Got it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Certainly, the suggestion that the universe had a beginning is an option, and not a daft one. We could provisionally agree, for the sake of argument, that it had, as far as I am concerned.

For the sake of argument, perhaps.

Yes.

It would be premature to accept it as a certainty. Or even a likelihood.

Personally, and I'm a long, long way from being able to understand much of the physics, and there are probably members here who have a much better grasp than me, I would venture to say that I am quite comfortable with the universe having a beginning as being more likely than not.

Incidentally, as far as I am aware, cyclic models were considered viable options until about the 1980's when expert opinion went against them, but that recently, various modified cyclic models have reappeared, at least as possible options, without some of the earlier flaws. In such a case (and possibly other models such as multiverses) we might therefore only be talking about 'this' or 'our' universe.

But for the sake of argument, why not?

Yeah. We're just chatting here.

 

[ruby sparks]

Certainly, the suggestion that the universe had a beginning is an option, and not a daft one. We could provisionally agree, for the sake of argument, that it had, as far as I am concerned.

It's not the only premise that would need to be provisionally accepted.

Borrowing from  Kalam cosmological argument:

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
Therefore
C1: The universe has a cause

P3: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful
P4 (C1): The universe has a cause
C2: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists
​

The truth of P1 and P2 are both unknown; we would need to accept both provisionally in order to accept C1.

P3 is special pleading, which renders C2 invalid even if P1 and P2 are true.

Sure.

 

[bigfield]

No it's not special pleading because "personal" means intentional.

From earlier in the thread:

God has no beginning therefore was not created, he has no cause.

Claiming that God "has no beginning" is just an elaboration on the attempt to claim an exception from causality, and is a straightforward example of special pleading.

The additional claim that the first cause is a personal God is simply a non-sequitur.

If the cause of the universe beginning can be likened to a light switch being turned on (or off) then the switch can't spontaneously turn itself on - because that would beg the question why it didn't turn itself on sooner than 13.7B years ago.

And it can't be an involuntary (impersonal) light switch because cause necessarily implies contingency. Agent/Mechanism

If God is the personal light switch in this analogy, then who manufactured said light switch? Is God an unmanufactured light switch? If God is immutable, then how can the light switch ever be switched from off to on? If God is eternal, then when was this light switch off?

The cause must be personal in the sense that it is the voluntary, decisive trigger that does not depend on a prior deterministic cause.

What triggered the God switch to flick itself on? What caused the trigger?

Either the universe has always existed or it was caused by intent or it came into existence by pure random chance.

Time is a dimension of Minkowski spacetime, which in turn is a property of the physical universe. This means that there is no point in time at which the universe did not exist. If we define 'always existed' as 'existed at every point in time', then the universe has always existed, at least according to relativity.

Of course, that conclusion only holds if relativity correctly describes the nature of time for all points in time, but we already know that it doesn't. So we simply don't know whether the universe has 'always existed'. At the very least, we have learned enough to move beyond metaphysical arguments that depend on an intuitive, classical conception of time.

We have no evidence that the universe was 'caused by intent', and the arguments presented in favour of this conclusion, including the KCA, are either unsound or invalid.

We have no evidence that the universe 'came into existence by pure random chance', just hypotheses presented by physicists, including (ironically) Alexander Vilenkin.

 

[Lion IRC]

No it's not special pleading because "personal" means intentional.

If the cause of the universe beginning can be likened to a light switch being turned on (or off) then the switch can't spontaneously turn itself on - because that would beg the question why it didn't turn itself on sooner than 13.7B years ago.

And it can't be an involuntary (impersonal) light switch because cause necessarily implies contingency. Agent/Mechanism

The cause must be personal in the sense that it is the voluntary, decisive trigger that does not depend on a prior deterministic cause.

Either the universe has always existed or it was caused by intent or it came into existence by pure random chance.

So you can think of three possibilities; but refuse to consider two thirds of them.

And you think that people who reject one third - and by far the least parsimonious third at that - are unreasonably closed minded.

Got it.

Yeah of course I think one of the three makes more sense.
But do you agree those three options are the only cards in the deck as best as we can tell?
And can you at least (grudgingly) admit that my "three of a kind" is no less valid than yours?

 

[ruby sparks]

No it's not special pleading because "personal" means intentional.

How do you know that a great gord elf didn't accidentally do a universe-creating fart while doing something else, and doesn't even realise he started our universe? If you say 'because he's omniscient', I'm going to ask you how you could possibly know that.

 

[Jobar]

God did it?
Ok fine - just take the word "God" away and put a question mark there instead.

Causal vs. acausal universe; a fair way of putting it. But at least so far, we have no evidence for causation. There are limits beyond which we cannot see, and may never be able to; but limitation does not imply causation.

 

[abaddon]

Yeah of course I think one of the three makes more sense ... can you at least (grudgingly) admit that my "three of a kind" is no less valid than yours?

"Of course". Now I'm reminded of the theist pseudo-perspectivist talk about "worldviews", and the "from the theist perspective" thing that gets added to some posts. It's often meant to put differing viewpoints into "nonoverlapping domains". "You have your view and I have mine, which relieves me of having to actually reason (ie, doubt) my way through my own view. [Though I'm visibly an absolutist regarding god-belief and not a perspectivist at all, the only shades of gray I see are in YOUR viewpoint; so this is my Joker card being played]."

 

[Juma]

No it's not special pleading because "personal" means intentional.

If the cause of the universe beginning can be likened to a light switch being turned on (or off) then the switch can't spontaneously turn itself on - because that would beg the question why it didn't turn itself on sooner than 13.7B years ago.

And it can't be an involuntary (impersonal) light switch because cause necessarily implies contingency. Agent/Mechanism

The cause must be personal in the sense that it is the voluntary, decisive trigger that does not depend on a prior deterministic cause.

Either the universe has always existed or it was caused by intent or it came into existence by pure random chance.

”Peesonal” implies more than ”intentional”.
And what the heck does ”intentional” mean?
Intentionality is nothing but a mental construct we use to predict behavior in other intelligent beings.

 

[Treedbear]

No it's not special pleading because "personal" means intentional.

If the cause of the universe beginning can be likened to a light switch being turned on (or off) then the switch can't spontaneously turn itself on - because that would beg the question why it didn't turn itself on sooner than 13.7B years ago.

And it can't be an involuntary (impersonal) light switch because cause necessarily implies contingency. Agent/Mechanism

The cause must be personal in the sense that it is the voluntary, decisive trigger that does not depend on a prior deterministic cause.

Either the universe has always existed or it was caused by intent or it came into existence by pure random chance.

So you can think of three possibilities; but refuse to consider two thirds of them.

And you think that people who reject one third - and by far the least parsimonious third at that - are unreasonably closed minded.

Got it.

Yeah of course I think one of the three makes more sense.
But do you agree those three options are the only cards in the deck as best as we can tell?
And can you at least (grudgingly) admit that my "three of a kind" is no less valid than yours?

Why would an (eta: a hypothetical) uncaused cause need to be personal/intentional? My experience is that everything intentional has a reason/cause. Likewise for things that are voluntary or in any way decisive.

ETA: Another one of your suggestions, a random occurrence existence, provides opportunities for the natural selection of survivable universes. In other words a universe that strongly correlates existence and survival is more likely to itself survive long enough to produce life.

 

[Lion IRC]

From earlier in the thread:

Claiming that God "has no beginning" is just an elaboration on the attempt to claim an exception from causality, and is a straightforward example of special pleading.

...says the dude who special pleads the opposite.
And I'm OK with that. If you claim the universe has always existed that's not impossible.
But neither is it impossible that the universe was caused by intent.

The additional claim that the first cause is a personal God is simply a non-sequitur.

No it's not because it's not an additional claim it's one of the types of cause.
If atheology holds that an infinite regression of prior causes are impersonal that's
not a non-sequitur either.

You like throwing around the terms "special pleading" and "non-sequitur" but not all special pleading is necessarily invalid. And not every claim or belief is presented as the coercive logical conclusion inferred from a set of propositions.

If the cause of the universe beginning can be likened to a light switch being turned on (or off) then the switch can't spontaneously turn itself on - because that would beg the question why it didn't turn itself on sooner than 13.7B years ago.

And it can't be an involuntary (impersonal) light switch because cause necessarily implies contingency. Agent/Mechanism

If God is the personal light switch in this analogy, then who manufactured said light switch?

If lower case "g" god was created by a Higher Being guess which Being I would worship.

Is God an unmanufactured light switch?

Yes.

If God is immutable, then how can the light switch ever be switched from off to on?

Who says God is immutable such that He can't decide to flip the switch?

If God is eternal, then when was this light switch off?

13.7 billion years ago

The cause must be personal in the sense that it is the voluntary, decisive trigger that does not depend on a prior deterministic cause.

What triggered the God switch to flick itself on?

What triggered Beethovens to create any given one of his symphonies?
You talk like you've never had a spontaneous moment of creativity where you do something new for the first time.

What caused the trigger?

That's what we're contemplating. Was the light switched on deliberately, accidentally, randomly or has it always been on.

Either the universe has always existed or it was caused by intent or it came into existence by pure random chance.

Time is a dimension of Minkowski spacetime,

Special pleading

which in turn is a property of the physical universe.

Non-sequitur

This means that there is no point in time at which the universe did not exist.

There is no point in time at which God did not exist.
Oh dear. See how easy it is to gainsay someone else's brute fact assertion about metaphysics.

If we define 'always existed' as 'existed at every point in time', then the universe has always existed, at least according to relativity.

How about we define God as past-eternal / uncaused and having volition.

Of course, that conclusion only holds if relativity correctly describes the nature of time for all points in time, but we already know that it doesn't. So we simply don't know whether the universe has 'always existed'.

Make up your mind. Has or has not?

At the very least, we have learned enough to move beyond metaphysical arguments that depend on an intuitive, classical conception of time.

Speak for yourself.

We have no evidence that the universe was 'caused by intent',

Yes we do. Cue the intelligent design argument in ...3,2,1

and the arguments presented in favour of this conclusion, including the KCA, are either unsound or invalid.

Hand waving now?

We have no evidence that the universe 'came into existence by pure random chance', just hypotheses presented by physicists, including (ironically) Alexander Vilenkin.

I wouldn't expect to find evidence that such a grand design happened by pure random chance either. Guess why I think that

 

[Elixir]

If you claim the universe has always existed that's not impossible.
But neither is it impossible that the universe was caused by intent.

Why pretend that those are the only two possibilities? Just to give your some god a 50% chance of existing? That's a fail for your religion anyhow, even if those WERE the only two possibilities. The "intent" that is assumed have a 50% chance of being causal could come from any one of (conservatively estimated) 10,000 gods that people have invented. That would give YOUR god a fat 0.005% chance of being/harboring the intent that caused the universe.