This is the final part to the series on Fine Tuning (aka, the final nail in the coffin). In the previous parts it was shown how there were basic flaws in the premises contained in the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA). Also discussed were the objections from mainstream scientists. In this concluding part, it will be shown that if you believe that the FTA proves the existence of God, then you must also conclude that God is controlling our weather intentionally killing innocent people! So strap your seat belts and put on your science helmet!
Roughly 50 years ago it became apparent to meteorologists that the atmosphere here on Earth has its own fine-tuning problem, specifically in the area of numerical weather prediction where physical equations of the atmosphere are applied to initial weather conditions and integrated forward in time to produce a weather forecast.
In the early 1960s Ed Lorenz was performing some of the earliest experiments in computer-based numerical weather prediction. By accident, Lorenz discovered that when the same set of initial weather conditions were input to three decimal places instead of six, the two sets of computer forecasts diverged rapidly apart. That is, very tiny changes in the initial state of the atmosphere grew nonlinearly through time resulting in dramatically different future weather patterns. This became known as the "butterfly effect" after a paper Lorenz presented in 1972 titled "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?". For this discovery Lorenz became known as the Father of chaos theory.
In addition to sensitivity to initial conditions, meteorologists further discovered that the future evolution of the weather is also extremely sensitive to numerous "tunable" physical parameters and constants of the atmosphere. For instance, if the moist adiabatic lapse rate was greater than the observed value of 3* per 1000 feet, then updrafts in thunderstorms would be weaker and there would be less violent weather. There are literally hundreds of these parameters and coefficients which are necessary to accurately describe the physics of our atmosphere including those for cloud radiation budgets, heat and moisture fluxes, turbulence, convection and so on. If any of these factors are altered even slightly then those differences would grow nonlinearly through the forecast period, resulting in dramatically different weather down the road.
In recognition of this meteorological "fine tuning", weather forecast centers around the world have adopted a strategy referred to as ensemble forecasting. Instead of running one computer forecast model from one set of initial conditions as input, the ensemble forecast technique runs dozens of computer forecast models each with a slightly different physics package or from slightly different initial conditions. As a result each computer forecast is different from the other, some more dramatically than others. This provides the meteorologist with information about the most probable future weather along with a measure of the different possibilities. Those who watch The Weather Channel during hurricane season have probably already seen the output from such ensemble forecasts which typically resembles a spaghetti plot. The link below provides one such example, which is of the possible forecast tracks of tropical storm Sandy roughly 10 days before intensifying to hurricane strength and bashing the NJ/NY coast.
http://www.artofscientia.com/spaghetti-plot-maps-of-tropical-storms-and-hurricanes-as-art/
Notice how the individual model forecast tracks diverge significantly over time only because of tiny differences in initial conditions and physical parameters. So this "fine-tuning" problem is for real in the atmospheric science and is widely acknowledged in the meteorological community.
So how does this relate to the fine tuning argument that God was responsible for creating the universe? Well, in the FTA it was argued that in order for the universe to exist, numerous physical constants have to be in a narrow range of values or else we wouldn't be here, and the odds of them ALL falling in such a narrow range to allow a life-permitting universe are so infinitesimal that a God had to be responsible. Those odds being on the order of one in 10^1050.
Well, in the meteorological fine tuning it ends up that in order for a killer hurricane like Sandy or Katrina to form the antecedent initial conditions several weeks prior to the storm's formation must be exactly tuned to specific values over a broad area. Even the slightest deviation from those precise values would result in no hurricane or one that takes a different path or intensity.
So what are the odds of having a storm exactly like hurricane Katrina form that follows the exact track and exhibits the same evolution of intensity over time? Perhaps not so surprisingly, that probability is far lower than the odds of one in 10^1050 for the formation of a life-permitting universe!
To show this, let's produce very conservative back-of-the-envelop calculations. First suppose there are just five meteorological variables that need to be fine-tuned (temperature, humidity, pressure, wind speed, wind direction). Next suppose there are only 10 possible values that each of those variables could possibly have whereby each value would result in a different weather pattern in the future. Lastly, suppose there are just 1000 locations across the northern hemisphere and 5 levels of the atmosphere (5000 total data points) where the initial conditions must be fine tuned. Again, these are VERY conservative estimates. Yet, when the math is done the probability of getting a storm exactly like Katrina is roughly one part in 10^34,948 (5^10 raised to the 5000th power). This of course is a much more insanely low probability than Hugh Ross's odds of a life-permitting universe mentioned earlier. Moreover, this calculation only considered the fine tuning of the initial conditions. If the fine tuning of the physical parameters are also taken into account the probability would be even insanely lower.
So what are the implications of meteorological fine tuning? Well quite simply, if you think that a God has to be responsible for the formation of the universe because the probability of its formation through the fine tuning of the physical constants is insanely low, then to be consistent you must also conclude that God is responsible for forming Hurricane Katrina since the probability of its formation is even lower. Of course that would mean God was responsible for human death and destruction! Doesn't sit well to theists does it? Well too bad. If theists want to concoct a crazy argument like the FTA to prove God formed the universe, then they have to take the good with the bad and similarly conclude God likes to kill people with tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and lightning.
Such a notion is silly, of course, because for the most part we can predict the weather. That would make it unlikely that it is being controlled by a God (since it's absurd to think we could forecast what a God would do with good reliability). Of course the error in both arguments is that given enough time and enough space, shit happens! The cosmos is enormous and old, and extremely rare things can happen at any time. That's not a proof of God's existence.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Evolution vs. Creation Debate
Yesterday the ever long debate between evolution and creationism took stage between "The Science Guy" Bill Nye and the director of the Creationist Museum Ken Ham.
Overall I thought Bill Nye performed really well. His point regarding the failure of the wooden ship Wyoming (built in 1905) was excellent for discounting the possibility that a handful of inexperienced people could build an arc that could last at sea for over a year. It was the first time I had ever heard that particular argument made.
Nye was also spot on when he said that we need to get past teaching kids about the Biblical creation stories and teach kids real science. Science and technology is the reason why our lives are so much better than the lives of our ancestors from 100-2000 years ago. Today we have air conditioned homes, cell phones, computers, cars, GPS systems, airplanes, hurricane/tornado warning systems ... none of which wouldn't be possible without using the same science that disproves the Biblical creation myths.
Of course there are a couple of points that I thought Nye could have improved upon. One of these was when he was asked where did the first atoms come from in the Big Bang, Nye responded "we don't know, it's a mystery" which is accurate. However he really could have driven the nail in the coffin with a follow-up like this:
"But just because something is unknown to science doesn't mean a god is responsible for the cause. For example, we don't know why an otherwise healthy middle-age person would get pancreatic cancer, but it would be silly to believe that a loving god caused it. Moreover, there have been many phenomena that at one time in our past were thought to be caused by god (rainbows, eclipses, lightning, motion of the planets, etc.), we even had specific gods in charge of them (e.g., Iris, Zeus, etc.), but later science was able to discover natural causes for each one. So to imply that god must be the cause of the origin of the universe because we don't know the true origin right now, is really a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance."
However, it's easy to Monday-morning quarterback a debate. I thought Bill Nye did a great job and kicked Ken Ham's butt. Of course, I don't even think the greatest religious apologist & debater of all, William Lane Craig, would have a prayer at defending a 6-day creation, 6000 year old universe, global flood and Noah's arc. Science has simply driven those myths into the ground.
Overall I thought Bill Nye performed really well. His point regarding the failure of the wooden ship Wyoming (built in 1905) was excellent for discounting the possibility that a handful of inexperienced people could build an arc that could last at sea for over a year. It was the first time I had ever heard that particular argument made.
Nye was also spot on when he said that we need to get past teaching kids about the Biblical creation stories and teach kids real science. Science and technology is the reason why our lives are so much better than the lives of our ancestors from 100-2000 years ago. Today we have air conditioned homes, cell phones, computers, cars, GPS systems, airplanes, hurricane/tornado warning systems ... none of which wouldn't be possible without using the same science that disproves the Biblical creation myths.
Of course there are a couple of points that I thought Nye could have improved upon. One of these was when he was asked where did the first atoms come from in the Big Bang, Nye responded "we don't know, it's a mystery" which is accurate. However he really could have driven the nail in the coffin with a follow-up like this:
"But just because something is unknown to science doesn't mean a god is responsible for the cause. For example, we don't know why an otherwise healthy middle-age person would get pancreatic cancer, but it would be silly to believe that a loving god caused it. Moreover, there have been many phenomena that at one time in our past were thought to be caused by god (rainbows, eclipses, lightning, motion of the planets, etc.), we even had specific gods in charge of them (e.g., Iris, Zeus, etc.), but later science was able to discover natural causes for each one. So to imply that god must be the cause of the origin of the universe because we don't know the true origin right now, is really a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance."
However, it's easy to Monday-morning quarterback a debate. I thought Bill Nye did a great job and kicked Ken Ham's butt. Of course, I don't even think the greatest religious apologist & debater of all, William Lane Craig, would have a prayer at defending a 6-day creation, 6000 year old universe, global flood and Noah's arc. Science has simply driven those myths into the ground.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 4
In the previous three installments of this series I attempted to shoot down the individual premises within the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA) used by theists to prove the existence of God. In this fourth installment I'll present some of the objections raised in the past by others, and then in the fifth and final installment I'll deliver one final blow using an example from our own atmosphere.
Clearly the objections I raised about the FTA are not the only ones that have been raised. Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson objects to the whole notion that the universe is fine-tuned for life. Tyson points out that there are so many things in the universe that can kill us (asteroid, nearby supernova, disease, etc.) and that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is uninhabitable for life, hardly what one would consider a grand design by an all-powerful creator. As Tyson eloquently states "the universe is no garden of eden."
Physicist Lee Smolin comically points out that the universe is more fine tuned for black holes than life, since they are more abundant in the cosmos than planets which are capable of supporting life. Historian Richard Carrier makes an excellent point that our universe looks exactly how it would if the universe was created naturally without god. It would have to be enormous in size, very old (to give time for life to evolve naturally somewhere in the universe), and life would only be rarely observed. And this is exactly what we see. In contrast, an all-powerful god would be expected to build a universe that is more benevolent for life.
Perhaps the most vehement objections to the FTA come from physicist Victor Stenger, who argues that many of the physical constants in the universe have to be that way and can not be set to anything other than the values we observed according to established physics and cosmology. He also points out that many of the constants appear to have a narrow window of life-permitting values only because of the units chosen. More importantly, many of the physical constants are not independent of each other, so changing one parameter can be compensated for by a change to another parameter which increases the probability of life-permitting universes. This dependency among many factors also means that accurate probabilities of a life-permitting universe can not be calculated. In his work Stenger was able to show computer simulations whereby viable universes can develop and exist for billions of years even when the physical parameters are simultaneously varied by several orders of magnitude. Plus there is no telling what other forms of life could form in a universe that had different sets of parameters.
So, as you can see, the FTA is a bunch of bunk no matter which angle it's viewed. In the fifth and final part to this series, I'll provide an example from our own atmosphere which shows that if you believe that the FTA is proof of god, then god must be controlling our weather!!
Clearly the objections I raised about the FTA are not the only ones that have been raised. Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson objects to the whole notion that the universe is fine-tuned for life. Tyson points out that there are so many things in the universe that can kill us (asteroid, nearby supernova, disease, etc.) and that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is uninhabitable for life, hardly what one would consider a grand design by an all-powerful creator. As Tyson eloquently states "the universe is no garden of eden."
Physicist Lee Smolin comically points out that the universe is more fine tuned for black holes than life, since they are more abundant in the cosmos than planets which are capable of supporting life. Historian Richard Carrier makes an excellent point that our universe looks exactly how it would if the universe was created naturally without god. It would have to be enormous in size, very old (to give time for life to evolve naturally somewhere in the universe), and life would only be rarely observed. And this is exactly what we see. In contrast, an all-powerful god would be expected to build a universe that is more benevolent for life.
Perhaps the most vehement objections to the FTA come from physicist Victor Stenger, who argues that many of the physical constants in the universe have to be that way and can not be set to anything other than the values we observed according to established physics and cosmology. He also points out that many of the constants appear to have a narrow window of life-permitting values only because of the units chosen. More importantly, many of the physical constants are not independent of each other, so changing one parameter can be compensated for by a change to another parameter which increases the probability of life-permitting universes. This dependency among many factors also means that accurate probabilities of a life-permitting universe can not be calculated. In his work Stenger was able to show computer simulations whereby viable universes can develop and exist for billions of years even when the physical parameters are simultaneously varied by several orders of magnitude. Plus there is no telling what other forms of life could form in a universe that had different sets of parameters.
So, as you can see, the FTA is a bunch of bunk no matter which angle it's viewed. In the fifth and final part to this series, I'll provide an example from our own atmosphere which shows that if you believe that the FTA is proof of god, then god must be controlling our weather!!
Sunday, January 19, 2014
How Stupid is Christianity? Part 1
Had a busy couple weeks at work, and still need to wrap up the Fine Tuning with one last installment. However I had an idea on my mind for a multi-part series on the stupidity of Christianity, and I wanted to belt out part 1 while it's fresh in my mind. So here it goes.
One of the core teachings of Jesus in his famous Sermon on the Mount is that we should love our enemies. The exact quote is from Matthew [6:43-44]: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Notwithstanding the fact that nobody in America would love Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, the stupidity of Christianity is that Jesus doesn't even follow his own teaching, because if you are not righteous you will be punished for eternity [Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43]!! Moreover, if any household or town doesn't welcome what Jesus preaches, they will be condemned to eternal torture [Matthew 10:14-15]!! To me that sure doesn't sound like Jesus loves his enemies!
This would be like the Pope saying it's wrong to have sex before marriage but then he goes out and hires a prostitute, or that it's wrong to gamble but then spends a week in a Las Vegas casino. Would anybody respect the Pope if he didn't practice what he preaches? Probably not. So why do people respect Jesus for not practicing what he preaches? Reason is people are blind to what's actually in the Bible and simply believe the dribble that comes out of the mouths of pastors without taking the time to do their own research.
One of the core teachings of Jesus in his famous Sermon on the Mount is that we should love our enemies. The exact quote is from Matthew [6:43-44]: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Notwithstanding the fact that nobody in America would love Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, the stupidity of Christianity is that Jesus doesn't even follow his own teaching, because if you are not righteous you will be punished for eternity [Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43]!! Moreover, if any household or town doesn't welcome what Jesus preaches, they will be condemned to eternal torture [Matthew 10:14-15]!! To me that sure doesn't sound like Jesus loves his enemies!
This would be like the Pope saying it's wrong to have sex before marriage but then he goes out and hires a prostitute, or that it's wrong to gamble but then spends a week in a Las Vegas casino. Would anybody respect the Pope if he didn't practice what he preaches? Probably not. So why do people respect Jesus for not practicing what he preaches? Reason is people are blind to what's actually in the Bible and simply believe the dribble that comes out of the mouths of pastors without taking the time to do their own research.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Philosophy vs. Science vs. God
I wanted to take a brief pause from the Fine Tuning posts while this topic was still fresh in my head.
Last week at the monthly meeting of our SMASH group (Sarasota Manatee Atheists & Secular Humanists), one of the members made a couple of statements I wanted to expand upon in more detail. Specifically, the claim was made that the question "Does God exist?" is purely a philosophical question and science can not be used to determine whether God exists.
Of course I disagree with that, but maybe there's some bias involved on both ends since the member who made the statement is a philosophy professor and I'm a scientist, LOL. However, looking at the issue as objectively as possible I can't help to think that without question science can address the likelihood of whether a specific God exists, like the God(s) of Christianity.
For starters, numerous Christian apologists (e.g., William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'Souza, Frank Tipler, etc.) are always trying to use science to prove the existence of God. In fact, the fine tuning argument (see my previous posts) is one of their favorites, and Tipler even wrote a book called the "Physics of Christianity". Additionally, science can also be used to debunk the claims of theists. For example, evolution theory disproves creationism. Natural selection debunks claims of intelligent design.
There are also several ways science can be used to determine whether God exists. The most obvious one would be if cosmologists could find a natural cause for the formation of the universe. Another one would be if chemists or biologists could determine how life could form from non-life. If natural solutions to these problems were found then that would certainly lower the probability of the existence of God.
Science could also be used to assess the probability of the existence of a specific God, like the God(s) of the Bible. For example, if the creation story in Genesis was found by modern science to be true, well then the probability of the existence of God would be high. However, if the creation story is proven nonsense by astronomers, anthropologists, archaeologists, geologists, and biologists, then the probability of the Biblical God would much lower. As another example consider the effects of prayer, which can be scientifically evaluated. In the New Testament Jesus said that if you pray and have faith you will receive what you ask. So if praying really works then that would be a positive sign that Jesus really exists. However if the opposite is true that praying has no effect, then that would lower the probability that Jesus exists. One other example to drive the point home is that God is often characterized as having certain properties (e.g., all-powerful and all-loving). Well if needless suffering exists then wouldn't that wouldn't that lower the probability of an all-powerful and all-loving God, and if starvation on earth were to suddenly end with food falling from the sky wouldn't that increase the probability of God's existence? Lastly, it's often said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, this is not necessarily true. For example, if there is no evidence that a goldfish is swimming in the lemon tea that I'm drinking right now, then that would be pretty good evidence that there really are no goldfish in my drink. Likewise, an all-powerful God would easily have the power to come down and say hello to us. The fact that we have no video recording of such an event does lower the probability that a God exists. So by considering all the potential factors, a rational person through science, logic, observation and reason should be able to assess the probability of God's existence.
In a way, trying to assess whether God exists is a similar problem in determining whether your home has any termites. The pest expert can perform a visual inspection to see if there are any living or dead termites. The expert can look for signs of termite damage (i.e., chewed wood, sagging floors, sawdust). The expert can look for mud tubes on the home's foundation. After assessing the evidence the pest control expert can form an opinion on whether there are any termites in the home. Even with the lack of any sign of problems, he may never be able to state with 100% certainty that there there are NO termites in the home since there are areas he may not be able to inspect. However, the expert should be able to make a judgment on whether termites are a problem.
In the same way a person can assess the evidence for the existence of a specific God. Does praying work? Did they see God? Did they witness a supernatural miracle? Are the scriptures accurate and in concordance with modern science? Did scientists discover how life forms from non-life? These are the many ways we can use science, observation and reason to assess whether a God exists. If the question of God's existence is purely a philosophical question, and if it wasn't possible to evaluate the evidence for the existence of God, then atheism would be nothing more than a faith-based viewpoint (like Christianity) rather than one based on critical thinking, objective analysis and scientific application that most atheists believe.
Last week at the monthly meeting of our SMASH group (Sarasota Manatee Atheists & Secular Humanists), one of the members made a couple of statements I wanted to expand upon in more detail. Specifically, the claim was made that the question "Does God exist?" is purely a philosophical question and science can not be used to determine whether God exists.
Of course I disagree with that, but maybe there's some bias involved on both ends since the member who made the statement is a philosophy professor and I'm a scientist, LOL. However, looking at the issue as objectively as possible I can't help to think that without question science can address the likelihood of whether a specific God exists, like the God(s) of Christianity.
For starters, numerous Christian apologists (e.g., William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'Souza, Frank Tipler, etc.) are always trying to use science to prove the existence of God. In fact, the fine tuning argument (see my previous posts) is one of their favorites, and Tipler even wrote a book called the "Physics of Christianity". Additionally, science can also be used to debunk the claims of theists. For example, evolution theory disproves creationism. Natural selection debunks claims of intelligent design.
There are also several ways science can be used to determine whether God exists. The most obvious one would be if cosmologists could find a natural cause for the formation of the universe. Another one would be if chemists or biologists could determine how life could form from non-life. If natural solutions to these problems were found then that would certainly lower the probability of the existence of God.
Science could also be used to assess the probability of the existence of a specific God, like the God(s) of the Bible. For example, if the creation story in Genesis was found by modern science to be true, well then the probability of the existence of God would be high. However, if the creation story is proven nonsense by astronomers, anthropologists, archaeologists, geologists, and biologists, then the probability of the Biblical God would much lower. As another example consider the effects of prayer, which can be scientifically evaluated. In the New Testament Jesus said that if you pray and have faith you will receive what you ask. So if praying really works then that would be a positive sign that Jesus really exists. However if the opposite is true that praying has no effect, then that would lower the probability that Jesus exists. One other example to drive the point home is that God is often characterized as having certain properties (e.g., all-powerful and all-loving). Well if needless suffering exists then wouldn't that wouldn't that lower the probability of an all-powerful and all-loving God, and if starvation on earth were to suddenly end with food falling from the sky wouldn't that increase the probability of God's existence? Lastly, it's often said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, this is not necessarily true. For example, if there is no evidence that a goldfish is swimming in the lemon tea that I'm drinking right now, then that would be pretty good evidence that there really are no goldfish in my drink. Likewise, an all-powerful God would easily have the power to come down and say hello to us. The fact that we have no video recording of such an event does lower the probability that a God exists. So by considering all the potential factors, a rational person through science, logic, observation and reason should be able to assess the probability of God's existence.
In a way, trying to assess whether God exists is a similar problem in determining whether your home has any termites. The pest expert can perform a visual inspection to see if there are any living or dead termites. The expert can look for signs of termite damage (i.e., chewed wood, sagging floors, sawdust). The expert can look for mud tubes on the home's foundation. After assessing the evidence the pest control expert can form an opinion on whether there are any termites in the home. Even with the lack of any sign of problems, he may never be able to state with 100% certainty that there there are NO termites in the home since there are areas he may not be able to inspect. However, the expert should be able to make a judgment on whether termites are a problem.
In the same way a person can assess the evidence for the existence of a specific God. Does praying work? Did they see God? Did they witness a supernatural miracle? Are the scriptures accurate and in concordance with modern science? Did scientists discover how life forms from non-life? These are the many ways we can use science, observation and reason to assess whether a God exists. If the question of God's existence is purely a philosophical question, and if it wasn't possible to evaluate the evidence for the existence of God, then atheism would be nothing more than a faith-based viewpoint (like Christianity) rather than one based on critical thinking, objective analysis and scientific application that most atheists believe.
Friday, January 3, 2014
You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 3
In the last post I shot down the first premise of the fine tuning argument (FTA) because it leaves out at least one possible contending choice for the explanation of the physical constants of the universe. This post will deal with the second premise, which eliminates chance and physical necessity from the equation leaving God as the only remaining choice.
In eliminating chance, the theist is solely basing this decision on the insanely low probability (1 in 10^1050) that all the physical constants would fall in a narrow, life-permitting window. However, is that enough information to eliminate chance from contention? The answer is definitely not! Here's why.
Suppose you are gambling in a Las Vegas casino and you start winning money playing blackjack. What information would be needed by the casino operators to prove that you were cheating instead of winning the money by luck (i.e., random chance)? Well, three pieces of information are required:
So, if the probability of winning a blackjack hand is 48% and you won 8 of the first 10 hands played, well that clearly could have happened by pure luck. However, if you played 10,000 hands and won 8,000 of them, then the casino would have solid evidence that the player and/or dealer was cheating the casino because the odds of winning 8,000 out of 10,000 hands couldn't happen reasonably by luck. Therefore, you need to know more than just the probability of winning in order to eliminate chance from consideration.
Here's another way of looking at it. Suppose I won the lottery in which there were 100 trillion possible number combinations. Does that mean I had to cheat in order to win since I couldn't have possibly overcome those odds? Of course not. If I had played this game 50 trillion times before or I purchased 75 trillion lottery tickets then I could easily win without cheating (or without supernatural intervention from God).
In the case of the FTA, the only information theists have at hand are the fact that we won once (i.e., our universe is life-permitting) and that the odds of a life-permitting universe are very low. Nobody knows how many times a universe tried to form in the past somewhere within the cosmos (i.e., the number of hands played). Nobody knows how many life-permitting universes exist within the cosmos or have existed in the past (i.e., the number of hands won). Without this information, the theist can not eliminate chance from premise 2. Therefore the entire FTA is unsound and must be discarded.
In part 4 of this series I'll list common objections that have been raised in the past by physicists which will really tighten the noose around the neck of the FTA.
In eliminating chance, the theist is solely basing this decision on the insanely low probability (1 in 10^1050) that all the physical constants would fall in a narrow, life-permitting window. However, is that enough information to eliminate chance from contention? The answer is definitely not! Here's why.
Suppose you are gambling in a Las Vegas casino and you start winning money playing blackjack. What information would be needed by the casino operators to prove that you were cheating instead of winning the money by luck (i.e., random chance)? Well, three pieces of information are required:
- The odds of winning a blackjack hand;
- The number of hands played;
- The number of hands won.
So, if the probability of winning a blackjack hand is 48% and you won 8 of the first 10 hands played, well that clearly could have happened by pure luck. However, if you played 10,000 hands and won 8,000 of them, then the casino would have solid evidence that the player and/or dealer was cheating the casino because the odds of winning 8,000 out of 10,000 hands couldn't happen reasonably by luck. Therefore, you need to know more than just the probability of winning in order to eliminate chance from consideration.
Here's another way of looking at it. Suppose I won the lottery in which there were 100 trillion possible number combinations. Does that mean I had to cheat in order to win since I couldn't have possibly overcome those odds? Of course not. If I had played this game 50 trillion times before or I purchased 75 trillion lottery tickets then I could easily win without cheating (or without supernatural intervention from God).
In the case of the FTA, the only information theists have at hand are the fact that we won once (i.e., our universe is life-permitting) and that the odds of a life-permitting universe are very low. Nobody knows how many times a universe tried to form in the past somewhere within the cosmos (i.e., the number of hands played). Nobody knows how many life-permitting universes exist within the cosmos or have existed in the past (i.e., the number of hands won). Without this information, the theist can not eliminate chance from premise 2. Therefore the entire FTA is unsound and must be discarded.
In part 4 of this series I'll list common objections that have been raised in the past by physicists which will really tighten the noose around the neck of the FTA.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 2
This is the second post in a series debunking the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA) used by theists to "prove" the existence of God.
At the end of the first post I pointed out the flaw in the first premise of the FTA ... namely that it is all too easy to omit a possible contender from the list of options. In the FTA the first premise argues that the explanation of the fine-tuning of the physical constants must be due to either physical necessity, chance or intelligent design (God). In the second premise theists rule out random chance due to the insanely low probability of all the constants appearing in a narrow window for life to occur. Theists also rule out physical necessity because there is no requirement that a universe MUST be life permitting. So that just leaves God. How convenient!
Unfortunately for the apologist, they are leaving out one important contender from the first premise ... that there's a physical explanation for the values of the constants but science isn't advanced enough to provide a thorough explanation just yet! Now this may initially sound like a cop out or a "physics of the gap argument", but there is actually a large body of historical precedence in favor of such an explanation.
At one time several thousand years ago nobody knew what caused thunderstorms, rainbows and solar eclipses. So those phenomena were thought to be caused by a God, and several gods were invented for each one (e.g., Zeus, Iris, Helius, etc.). Of course, today we are smarter and have natural explanations for each of these phenomena, and the Gods who were once worshiped are now in the trash heap of the almighty known as mythology. Even by the 1600s the eminent Sir Isaac Newton thought that the regular motions of the planets "could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent being." Well, today we know how solar systems form and what the planetary motions would be like in those naturally forming systems. Again we figured out no god is required.
So how do we know there isn't a physical explanation why the physical constants appear to fall in a narrow window required for life? Isn't it very possible that our body of knowledge in cosmology just hasn't advanced enough yet? What would happen if this debate was happening 2000 years ago and theists were using the observation of a rainbow as evidence for the existence of God?
Well, the argument might go something like this:
Premise 1: Rainbows are caused either by chance, physical necessity or God.
Premise 2: Rainbows are not the result of chance or physics.
Premise 3: Rainbows therefore are caused by God.
The apologist would eliminate physical necessity from premise 2 because at that time they didn't know any physics or optics, and they would eliminate chance as well because the odds of all those colors forming in that pattern are astronomically low. How low? Well let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, pretending of course we don't know the physics of rainbows.
Suppose there are 10 color choices (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, clear, white and black). In actuality rainbows have over 100,000 distinct colors our eyes can detect, but only 10 are needed to make the point. Next, assume it's a typical rainbow that has an arc length of one mile (5280 feet) and a width of 100 feet. This results in a rainbow of 528,000 square feet in size. Last, for convenience assume a "pixel" size of one square foot and that there can only be one color in each pixel. Remember, we're assuming this argument is taking place 2000+ years ago when we didn't know there could be hundreds of water drops in each "pixel" that can produce their own color.
Given the ultra-conservative numbers presented above (10 colors & 528,000 pixels), the probability of a rainbow appearing in the sky by random chance would be just one in 10^528,000 (that's 10 raised to the 528,000th power)!! Of course this number is even lower than Hugh Ross's probability of a life-permitting universe (1 in 10^1050). No wonder why people in ancient civilizations attributed the formation of a rainbow to a creation from God, LOL.
Today, however we know the optics of rainbows and know that the "pixels" are not independent of each other. However 2000 years ago if they eliminated chance as an explanation based on the extremely low probability (just like they are doing today with fine tuning of the constants) they would have been gravely mistaken. So in reality, the theist can not eliminate the strong possibility that there is a physical explanation for the fine-tuning of the physical constants (that we just don't know yet). As such, premise 1 is flawed which makes the entire FTA unsound.
In the next installment I'll shoot down premise #2.
At the end of the first post I pointed out the flaw in the first premise of the FTA ... namely that it is all too easy to omit a possible contender from the list of options. In the FTA the first premise argues that the explanation of the fine-tuning of the physical constants must be due to either physical necessity, chance or intelligent design (God). In the second premise theists rule out random chance due to the insanely low probability of all the constants appearing in a narrow window for life to occur. Theists also rule out physical necessity because there is no requirement that a universe MUST be life permitting. So that just leaves God. How convenient!
Unfortunately for the apologist, they are leaving out one important contender from the first premise ... that there's a physical explanation for the values of the constants but science isn't advanced enough to provide a thorough explanation just yet! Now this may initially sound like a cop out or a "physics of the gap argument", but there is actually a large body of historical precedence in favor of such an explanation.
At one time several thousand years ago nobody knew what caused thunderstorms, rainbows and solar eclipses. So those phenomena were thought to be caused by a God, and several gods were invented for each one (e.g., Zeus, Iris, Helius, etc.). Of course, today we are smarter and have natural explanations for each of these phenomena, and the Gods who were once worshiped are now in the trash heap of the almighty known as mythology. Even by the 1600s the eminent Sir Isaac Newton thought that the regular motions of the planets "could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent being." Well, today we know how solar systems form and what the planetary motions would be like in those naturally forming systems. Again we figured out no god is required.
So how do we know there isn't a physical explanation why the physical constants appear to fall in a narrow window required for life? Isn't it very possible that our body of knowledge in cosmology just hasn't advanced enough yet? What would happen if this debate was happening 2000 years ago and theists were using the observation of a rainbow as evidence for the existence of God?
Well, the argument might go something like this:
Premise 1: Rainbows are caused either by chance, physical necessity or God.
Premise 2: Rainbows are not the result of chance or physics.
Premise 3: Rainbows therefore are caused by God.
The apologist would eliminate physical necessity from premise 2 because at that time they didn't know any physics or optics, and they would eliminate chance as well because the odds of all those colors forming in that pattern are astronomically low. How low? Well let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, pretending of course we don't know the physics of rainbows.
Suppose there are 10 color choices (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, clear, white and black). In actuality rainbows have over 100,000 distinct colors our eyes can detect, but only 10 are needed to make the point. Next, assume it's a typical rainbow that has an arc length of one mile (5280 feet) and a width of 100 feet. This results in a rainbow of 528,000 square feet in size. Last, for convenience assume a "pixel" size of one square foot and that there can only be one color in each pixel. Remember, we're assuming this argument is taking place 2000+ years ago when we didn't know there could be hundreds of water drops in each "pixel" that can produce their own color.
Given the ultra-conservative numbers presented above (10 colors & 528,000 pixels), the probability of a rainbow appearing in the sky by random chance would be just one in 10^528,000 (that's 10 raised to the 528,000th power)!! Of course this number is even lower than Hugh Ross's probability of a life-permitting universe (1 in 10^1050). No wonder why people in ancient civilizations attributed the formation of a rainbow to a creation from God, LOL.
Today, however we know the optics of rainbows and know that the "pixels" are not independent of each other. However 2000 years ago if they eliminated chance as an explanation based on the extremely low probability (just like they are doing today with fine tuning of the constants) they would have been gravely mistaken. So in reality, the theist can not eliminate the strong possibility that there is a physical explanation for the fine-tuning of the physical constants (that we just don't know yet). As such, premise 1 is flawed which makes the entire FTA unsound.
In the next installment I'll shoot down premise #2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)