Kenneth miller thinks god exists in quantum mechanics

JaredJames

I'm not arguing we have things well set out for life, but that doesn't mean something fine tuned it to be that way. The argument being given here is "things appear finely tuned therefore something did that".

To quote from your wiki page:
I was going to mention this point. Just because we don't have a way of existing with things being different, doesn't mean something else couldn't have.

As per my coin toss example, just because something unlikely occurs, it doesn't mean someone caused that to happen (fine tuned it to occur). Sure, perhaps the particular circumstances were perfectly tuned for it to happen, but again that doesn't mean someone made it that way.

RE Bolded: I wasn't being serious, just throwing out something equally plausible as there being a god that fine tuned things.
How lovely, perhaps you could point out where they invoke a god?

vjk2

why didn't I wikipedia search this notion to start off? silly me.

yeah, that's what I"m arguing in a nutshell.

Ryan_m_b

The difference is you are arguing that the conditions of this universe are what they are because some intelligent process deliberately caused it to be so specifically so that what we have could come to be.

JaredJames

No, you're arguing a god(s) forced things this way for us. That is the context I've been reading throughout this.

vjk2

Proponents of fine-tuning include physicist Paul Davies who has stated "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

JaredJames

And the line directly before that:
And directly after it:
Also note that the line you quote simply means people agree we have things pretty well set out for life. Not that they agree it was produced by something(one) such as a god. It also doesn't rule out it being freak occurrence and neither does it rule out other possibilities of life etc.

vjk2

Yes, some people disagree with the notion of a fine-tuned universe.

JaredJames

The line you quoted doesn't change what I wrote (the bit you quoted of me).

You are arguing for a god(s) or creator. That line, doesn't support your view. In fact, that almost strikes me as trying to pass off misinformation.

vjk2

Who said that it had to? That's the notion. draw what conclusions you may from it.

and...read the book!

Ryan_m_b

This is just going round in circles. vjk2 you are just ignoring peoples points and making erroneous arguments whilst not supplying evidence for your claim that an intelligent entity did it.

JaredJames

So why post it?

It didn't have anything to do with my posts, it didn't support you, what exactly was it's purpose?

Dotini

Don't most of today's most-published, trendsetting super-thinkers like Hawking, Davies, Kaku et al accept the multiverse theory precisely because of apparent fine-tuning?

Respectfully,
Steve

vjk2

The wikipedia entry did a better job of explaining a concept I was trying to explain a few pages back. and someone else linked it, not me.

if there is only one universe (there might be multiple universes, but we have no evidence of these alternate universes in which gravitational constants are different), then the fact that it has been "fine-tuned" for the periodic table of elements and from there, life, is evidence of a God.

That is Ken Miller's argument.

You guys are saying that it is reductionist, like say, how a lucky lottery ticket winner might attribute some superstition to his win when it was mere probability. That is why creationists are wrong. But, for the universe to exist as it is there is a one in infinity chance, and there is only one shot at it. Finely tuned.

That's the argument.

Ryan_m_b

That may be the argument but it is unsubstantiated.

Claiming something is evidence does not make it so. You have to have demonstrable data, you cant just say "X is evidence of Y", you actually have to support that.

JaredJames

No it is not. That is a key point you are missing.

So far you are inferring this without supporting evidence, despite requests. This thread is going round and round.

vjk2

well.

the point hinges on whether or not there are multiple universes or not.

If there are multiple universes, then it all procedes much as natural selection.

If there is only one universe, then there is a one in infinity chance that the various physical constants are put into just hte right balance that hydrogen and oxygen can form, that stars can ignite and planets coalesce.

if there is only one universe and there is a one in infinity chance for all of this happening, then that would be evidence of some sort of deity.

there is no conclusive evidence that this is the only universe that has ever been...however there is mroe evidence of this one universe's existence than there is of infinity parallel univereses with different physical constants. Our current reality could have been one of infinity prior universes, or it might be the only one. there is no conclusive proof either way, true.

But, if it is the only universe in existence, the one in infinity chance is pretty convincing. You guys are basically saying that...it's so obvious that fine-tuning didn't happen b/c there were multiple preceding universes. If you don't want god to exist, then you're pretty much forced to argue for multiple preceding universes. So where's the proof for those universes?

Ryan_m_b

You're presenting a string of logical fallacies.

Firstly; our understanding of the 'creation' of the universe is limited. There is no evidence for the claim 'there were infinite chances'

Secondly; even if there were an infinity of chances there is no requirement for an omnipotent intelligence to make one of those options happen

Thirdly; it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the only two options are god or multiple universes

Fourthly; multiple universes would not undergo natural selection, unless you are suggesting that within some meta-universe all universes compete for existence and the chance to procreate and that there is some criteria for selecting universes with this meta-universe. Pure conjuncture.

My second point is by far the worst logical fallacy that you (and/or miller) has made