Monday, October 19, 2009

Fine-Tuning of the Universe MP3 Audios by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards

Here are a couple of great talks from Veritas.org, featuring Privileged Planet authors (book / DVD) Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe (Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards)
MP3 Part 1 Talk | MP3 Part 2 Q&A

Our Privileged Planet (Guillermo Gonzalez)
MP3 Part 1 Talk | MP3 Part 2 Q&A (audio quality poor)

Enjoy.

What was last year's post? See here.

9 comments :

Lee said...

Downloading now... this should be a great car accident.

Did I tell you that this privileged planet nonsense was one of my first blogs posts - well, I have now

http://strawmen-cometh.blogspot.com/2008/05/id-attack-1-introduction.html

The argument was rubbish then, I doubt it got any better.

Lee

Leslie said...

Good to know you're going in with any open mind though. Free thought is pretty sweet.

SteveC said...

Leslie, Good one!

Lee, Speaking of "car accidents", that is how I like to describe the attempts of most atheists in answering the fine-tuning problem.

Mark said...

I was pleasantly surprised with Guillermo Gonzalez's talk. He kept to the science and then reflected back on the scientific data with his religious views. He didn't warp the science. I also like the different twist on the Fine-Tuning argument: The universe is designed for discovery.

Lee said...

Hi Leslie,

Good to know you're going in with any open mind though.

You mean that I’ve already been tainted by the evidence of the guys book - yep, read it, it was nonsense.

Unless you care to tell me where I went wrong on my blog post?

Hi SteveC

Speaking of "car accidents", that is how I like to describe the attempts of most atheists in answering the fine-tuning problem.

What problem?

A biologist friend summed up the ‘fine-tuning’ argument rather well (as only a biologist could).

Using the theist’s logic it is clear that the universe was fine-tuned for pubic lice.
(that is, it required humans for a place for pubic lice to live – lovely fine-tuning that is)

I think he is wrong of course, being educated in astrophysics, it is clear the universe was fine tuned for black holes – that is what the future holds.

And that is the problem with the ‘fine-tuning’ argument – it is arbitrary. It is meaningless. Pick a time, pick a place… it is whatever you want it to be.

Oh, and the theist needs to prove the universe could not have been any other way. Never seen that proof, but maybe you have it.

It is all very well saying that a circle, if it had 4 sides, would no longer be a circle - but can you actually make such a change?

Prove it, as they say

Lee

Chad said...

Hey Mark,

I just wanted to recommend the Privileged Planet video as well. If you enjoyed the audio, you will enjoy the video as well. Hope you and your family are well.

Lee,

What do you think the fine-tuning argument is meant to demonstrate?

Further, are we really supposed to accept that you (and your biologist friend) have debunked the fine-tuning argument that even Hitchens and Dawkins admit is intriguing, by a pubic lice argument? Wow.

Finally, you do realize that when one objects to a designer because of supposed poor design ("lovely fine tuning that is") he or she is making a theological argument, not a scientific one, yes?

Take care

Lee said...

Hi Chad,

What do you think the fine-tuning argument is meant to demonstrate?

You tell me…

The theist seems to use it as ‘evidence’ for their particular God of choice – it does not even come close.

At best (once again) even IF I accepted (just for a millisecond) the argument to be valid – it is ONLY an argument for a deistic God. One that set up the all the constants to be a particular value (could they be any other I ask myself?) and then did nothing else.

Fine tuned – so close to disaster… it’s a crazy argument to use for the Christian God.

The next obvious question (again if I were to accept the argument which I do not) is fine-tuned for what?

I have provided two better examples of what the universe could have been fined-tuned for… black holes and pubic lice.

Can you see how meaningless the argument is – even IF I accepted it?

Further, are we really supposed to accept that you (and your biologist friend) have debunked the fine-tuning argument that even Hitchens and Dawkins admit is intriguing, by a pubic lice argument? Wow.

For the record - Can you quote me where Hitchens and Dawkins said it ‘intriguing’?

The argument is a joke… I suspect both these fine fellows know that. If they don’t that is there problem not mine (I do not accept the argument from authority – even if they are an atheist)

The only thing I find ‘intriguing’ is that the Christian think it is valid to use it for their God of chose as I said..

Debunk? There isn’t anything to debunk as yet… as Hitchens is quoted as saying “the Christians has all the hard work ahead of them”

That does not sound like a man who takes the argument serious (or intriguing) BTW :-)

Finally, you do realize that when one objects to a designer because of supposed poor design ("lovely fine tuning that is") he or she is making a theological argument, not a scientific one, yes?

And?

The argument being made here would be IF the argument is true – what does it (theologically) say about this God.

It does confuse some people that I can see an argument from both sides.

If true, then what...

If false, then what...

It's easy - try it sometime.

So I never said it was scientific argument (since the Christian at this point isn’t making a scientific argument, so how can I use science against it?)…

For the record – I think science rejects the supernatural, since if the ‘supernatural’ was ever observed, it would be natural by definition.

The more important question is why can’t I play the theological argument card? Don’t like it when I play by your rules?

Take care

Lee

Chad said...

Lee,

“Fine tuned – so close to disaster…”

But how do you know this? For you to say that the world is finely-tuned for disaster, would you not have to know why the world was created (or exists) in the first place? In other words, it seems to object to the condition of the creation, you must first know the intent of the creator when he created it.

“is fine-tuned for what?”

I believe the core of the teleological argument is that the universe has the appearance of being designed (fine-tuned) for life. The “for what” question comes later; however, I am willing to bet that the lice and black holes are not pondering the same question.

Regarding Hitchens and Dawkins, Jay Wesley Richards debated Hitchens a few years back on the topic of ID. Shortly after, Richards was interviewed by Stand to Reason’s Greg Koukl and said that Hitchens said to him, after the debate, that he and Dawkins find the fine-tuning argument to be the strongest in favor of theism. Do they accept it? No. I was simply pointing out that they at least admit there is some merit to it, no matter how minimal.

“why can’t I play the theological argument card?”

I will ignore your insults, but please know (not sure you care) that they are unappreciated.
I did not say, nor imply, that you could not use theological arguments. My question, however, remains: Do you know the intent of the creator when he created? Or, to quote Hithens- “Do you claim to know the mind of God?” It is the Christian’s conviction that the Bible is God’s revelation to humanity. However, I am interested how you, an atheist, can make such claims. In other words, what is the foundation of your theological arguments?

I do appreciate you admitting that you are making theological arguments.

Respectfully

Brandon said...

Lee, I must say that any thoughtful Theist shouldn't claim (or at least they shouldn't) that the Fine Tuning Argument proves a specific God. How could it?

"so close to disaster… it’s a crazy argument to use for the Christian God."

"Saying that the design of the universe seems to be in disfunction; does in no way to show that there is no design. There are examples of apparent bad design, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed.
For example, some precription pills help cure an illness but have adverse side effects; and may cause addiction. Does this mean that the pill that is to cure an illness isn't designed?
Or take for example a Porche', over time it will rust, erode, and break down; thus one day ending up in a junk yard. But just because it does; isn't reason to infer that it wasnt' designed. Things that are designed cannot be perfect or optimal in every respect, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't originally designed."

And one example that I came up with is a ski-mask. Should we infer that it is not designed because criminals use it in a negative way? There are good qualities of design and bad qualities, but the fact of the matter is, just because we can pick out the bad; does not mean it wasn't orginally designed.

Anthony Flew heard the Fine Tuning argument, thus he now believes in a God. So if it can change an atheists position, surely it has some merit.

How do you feel about the fact that if one of the forces (strong or weak) were altered enormously minute way, there would be no universe? Look, fine tuning is here; but there is no naturalistic explanation that fits better than an intelligence "fine tuning" the universe. If you think there is no fine tuning, or that there is a better explanation than a god, then perhaps you could share it with us?

One more thing, just incase you have forgotten, Intelligent Design doesn't posit a specific god.

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.

Blog Archive

Amz