Fine tuning: Size of Earth

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 10, 2014

Fine tuning, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further from that Eric Metaxas:

“If the earth were slightly larger, it of course would have slightly larger gravity, which has interesting implications. It’s not just that a person who weighs 150 pounds would weigh more. It’s that if the earth had slightly more gravity than it now has, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen, respectfully, would remain close to our surface. Since we cannot breathe methane and ammonia, which are toxic, we would die. More to the point, we would have never come into existence in the first place.

On the other hand, if earth were just a tiny bit smaller and had a bit less gravity, water vapor, which has a molecular weight of 18, would not stay down here close to the planet’s surface but would instead dissipate into the planets atmosphere. Obviously, without water we could not exist.” – Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 38-39

Again, hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

They do see the universe as “finely tuned” but ignore that there may be an underlying symmetry, or that there may be a process that conforms life to fit the hole.
And you know this how, exactly?
Specified complexity is not sufficient to reach a conclusion of design.
And you know this how, exactly? Every time we have observed specified complexity and knew the cause it has always been via intelligent agency- ALWAYS. No one has ever observed nature, operating freely produce specified complexity- Never happened. So, according to scientific methodology, when we observe specified complexity and don't know the cause we can safely scientifically infer there was an intelligent agency involved. BTW humans dig holes and fill them with water. In that case your puddle would be right.Joe_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: For, on cosmological fine tuning, the many parameters are not credibly driven by any superlaw that forces the values And you know this how exactly?Zachriel_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

jazzcat: There is dependence between the hole and the puddle, you keep ignoring this fact. We're not ignoring it. It's key to understanding the analogy. The puddle is not aware of the dependent relationship. We are. The puddle reasons from what he knows, the hole fits staggeringly well. Because we see the underlying symmetry, we realize the puddle is making a fallacious argument. Specified complexity is not sufficient to reach a conclusion of design. jazzcat: If I were the puddle I could reasonably conclude that my shape IS dependent by studying myself (jazzpuddle) and my universe (my hole). Jazzpuddle: The staggeringly exact fit is clear evidence of design. Z-volution group: There may be some underlying process or symmetry that explains the fit. Jazzpuddle: You have no evidence of that. Z-volution group: It's just a conjecture at this point. Jazzpuddle: Design! jazzcat: Your reasoning is that since the puddle in the hole somehow cannot know its hole is finely tuned (designed) for its existence The puddle does know the hole is finely tuned. It just doesn't know why. jazzcat: this means humans somehow cannot know that the universe is finely tuned (designed) to allow humans to live. Similarly for IDers. They do see the universe as "finely tuned" but ignore that there may be an underlying symmetry, or that there may be a process that conforms life to fit the hole. jazzcat: We would argue that the puddle CAN know and SHOULD know whether or not. There's no such observation available to the puddle. It has only the one example to consider and no way to vary the parameters. jazzcat: Transferring KNOWN human designs (locks/keys for function) to puddle analogies follows that since the “design” cannot know if it was designed (or exists out of necessity) then KNOWN human designs ARE NOT REALLY DESIGNED. We have evidence that keys and locks are designed. We have evidence of the designer, the how and why they make locks. jazzcat: 1)How do you INFER your house doorlock/key were designed for a purpose and NOT through wholly natural processes? The usual way, motive, opportunity, and means; that is, by tracing the causality from the artisan to the art to the artifact. jazzcat: 2)If your housekey staggeringly fits well into the doorlock and it cannot know if its shape is dependent or independent of the lock (just like the puddle analogy) does this logically conclude that your housekey and door lock are NOT finely tuned for a purpose or NOT designed? No, just like with the puddle, it means the conclusion is unsupported and premature. It requires evidence beyond mere specified complexity to distinguish the cases.Zachriel_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Zachriel @125 -"jazzcat: a puddle, as we all know, is simply what results of the mechanical necessity -Z: Yes, that’s why the analogy works. We know something the puddle doesn’t." Irrelevant, if the puddle doesn't know his shape is dependent on the shape of its hole then its a stupid puddle. -"jazzcat: For, on cosmological fine tuning, the many parameters are not credibly driven by any superlaw that forces the values -Z: And you know this how exactly?" That was from Kairosfocus @118 but that's OK. I'll let him answer that if he wants. -"jazzcat: Still NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their fit. -Z:The independence is between the hole and the puddle; just like the claim that the universe has to have a certain shape to contain you." I've already argued that is incorrect. There is dependence between the hole and the puddle, you keep ignoring this fact. It doesn't matter if the puddle doesn't know it. If I were the puddle I could reasonably conclude that my shape IS dependent by studying myself (jazzpuddle) and my universe (my hole). -"jazzcat: How do you know? -Z:We start with the evidence for branching descent; the nested hierarchy and the fossil succession." Maybe you misunderstood my question. I didn't ask how your reasoning for evolution. Your reasoning is that since the puddle in the hole somehow cannot know its hole is finely tuned (designed) for its existence this means humans somehow cannot know that the universe is finely tuned (designed) to allow humans to live. We would argue that the puddle CAN know and SHOULD know whether or not. Transferring KNOWN human designs (locks/keys for function) to puddle analogies follows that since the "design" cannot know if it was designed (or exists out of necessity) then KNOWN human designs ARE NOT REALLY DESIGNED. Do you see the contradiction now?? This means that we cannot even determine if a HUMAN design is designed. If you respond to this comment at all please respond to at least these questions: 1)How do you INFER your house doorlock/key were designed for a purpose and NOT through wholly natural processes? 2)If your housekey staggeringly fits well into the doorlock and it cannot know if its shape is dependent or independent of the lock (just like the puddle analogy) does this logically conclude that your housekey and door lock are NOT finely tuned for a purpose or NOT designed?jazzcat_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

The puddle analogy in real life: “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — it's dirty, rocky and uncomfortable, isn't it? In fact it is so dirty and rocky why am I even in it? This is a mess and wouldn't happen if someone designed a hole for me."Joe_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

It’s an illustration of a fallacious argument to design.
No, it isn't. It is a desperate attempt at trying to show a "fallacious argument to design", but it fails because it is so stupid.Joe_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

MT: ?
Identifying designer is going to lead to host of problems
Only in your mind.
including explanation of capabilities, mechanisms of managing trillions of processes, existence beyond space-time, multiple dimension etc.
That doesn't make any sense.Joe_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

No, the analogy is very stupid.Joe_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Rain may entirely avoid a hole. Great point! Only if there is a puddle to consider the situation, the puddle equivalent of the anthropic principle. Silver Asiatic: A hole is not specified or complex. Water does not always fit the hole “staggeringly well” but can overflow or underfill. Rain may entirely avoid a hole. Water fits every contour “staggeringly well”. Rocks fill holes also as does sand. The puddle doesn't know all that. Silver Asiatic: Rain may entirely avoid a hole. Not any rainwater, but the very puddle who is contemplating the very hole it is in. Silver Asiatic: The analogy says nothing. C'mon people. The analogy is very simple.Zachriel_{December 12, 2014
December
12
Dec
12
12
2014
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Physical Science indicates God Design is on the short list for the explanation of fine tuning. Occam Razor picks as simplest explanation btw.
Identifying designer is going to lead to host of problems - including explanation of capabilities, mechanisms of managing trillions of processes, existence beyond space-time, multiple dimension etc. It is the most complicated explanation.Me_Think_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

We merely pointed out that you were engaging in handwaving.
You might consider taking responsibility for your own post and not assigning it to an unidentified group of people, "we"? Just a thought. And your reference was obvious ridicule as I pointed out, as much as you've tried to hand-wave it away here. A hole is not specified or complex. Water does not always fit the hole “staggeringly well” but can overflow or underfill. Rain may entirely avoid a hole. Water fits every contour “staggeringly well”. Rocks fill holes also as does sand. The analogy says nothing.
just like the claim that the universe has to have a certain shape to contain you.
Ok, a hole supposedly, has to have a specific shape to contain rainwater, just like the earth has to have certain conditions to support human life. Ok, I've got a good sense about your understanding of fine-tuning arguments now. And yes, you are being serious about this argument.Silver Asiatic_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Physical Science indicates God Design is on the short list for the explanation of fine tuning. Occam Razor picks as simplest explanation btw. Don't care so much about debating fallacious arguments to design.ppolish_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

ppolish: No respectable Physicist would use puddle analogy It's not a physical argument. It's an illustration of a fallacious argument to design.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

No respectable Physicist would use puddle analogy for the fine tuning. It's playground stuff. Atheist Leonard Susskind explains clearly that the fine tuning is due to: 1) Chance - Absolutely No Way per Leonard. 2) God - Please No Way per Leonard, 3) Multi/MegaVerse - Please, Way, per Leonard No puddle argument or analogy lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s&feature=youtube_gdata_playerppolish_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

jazzcat: a puddle, as we all know, is simply what results of the mechanical necessity Yes, that's why the analogy works. We know something the puddle doesn't. jazzcat: For, on cosmological fine tuning, the many parameters are not credibly driven by any superlaw that forces the values And you know this how exactly? jazzcat: How do you know? We start with the evidence for branching descent; the nested hierarchy and the fossil succession. jazzcat: Where the analogy is flawed is that ID does not argue design from exact fit. Just staggeringly well. jazzcat: Still NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their fit. The independence is between the hole and the puddle; just like the claim that the universe has to have a certain shape to contain you. Silver Asiatic: Fine-tuning arguments often trigger theophobia and the uncontrollable desire to ridicule God for no apparent reason. We merely pointed out that you were engaging in handwaving.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

The Puddle allegory can be used to prove reincarnation true as well because the water vaporizes at the end of the story to the clouds and then again to earth to another puddle through the water circle lol The Fine Tuning is not due to physical necessity to claim that it is due to a physical hole, even if that was the case the hole could be opened by an intelligent being, there are artificial puddles you know...lol Atheists are getting more and more desperate to prove that they are random cosmic mistakes that nothingness spewed. They suffer from manic depression.JimFit_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

"puddle filling a hole" is a bit babyish. Come on puddle people. You have explored the formation of your puddle and understand how it filled up starting at the first trillionth of a trillionth second. You know puddle is expanding but don't know why. Dark Puddle Bits and Dark Puddle Energy are your best guesses. And the puddle fits the hole precisely to 120 decimal places. If the puddle changes by .000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 it could not exist. Ok, maybe there are many puddles out there, Some big, some small. Some overflowing, some dry. If you have a trillion trillion trillion trillion many more trillion puddles out there, maybe on can be as fine tuned as this one. Don't hold your breath.ppolish_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Zachriel 110
Silverpuddle waves his watery appendages.
I know what you mean. Fine-tuning arguments often trigger theophobia and the uncontrollable desire to ridicule God for no apparent reason. I've seen it before. It happens.Silver Asiatic_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

"jazzcat: The puddle in a hole is precisely NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their constrained fit. Zachriel: It holds the puddle, a function of utmost importance to the puddle." Still NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their fit. Holding the puddle is DEPENDENT.jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Zachriel @117 "That’s the question entailed in the analogy. We know that the puddle’s reasoning is flawed. The exact fit could be due to design, or it could be due to some underlying process or symmetry. The exact alone is not sufficient to make the determination. And that’s the point of the analogy." Where the analogy is flawed is that ID does not argue design from exact fit. Where your analogy also fails is to assume that the puddle CANNOT know its existence is constrained. We CAN. and we HAVE. As an aside, can you find it reasonable that there are clues to suggest foresight knowledge? An example would be a surprise party. The surprised person could reasonably infer that the people at his party KNEW he was coming. Could we not find similar clues in the universe that suggested it "knew" life was going to happen?jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Zachriel @115 "No. They originated by different mechanisms." How do you know? This ties into my earlier comment relating to the thought experiment: how can you know its a different cause ?jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Z, your attempt to dismiss the significance of prong height codes and key-lock fit or other instances of parts co-adapted to fit and work together, caught my eye. FYI, a puddle, as we all know, is simply what results of the mechanical necessity of water etc flowing or falling into and filling a low spot, as I just had to wade through when crossing a field (it's been raining and the ground is saturated). Low contingency natural regularity. Not relevant to the FSCO/I stored in say codes in mRNA. And, as for this is fine tuned, the lack of contingency in the situation is revealing of a pivotal point. For, on cosmological fine tuning, the many parameters are not credibly driven by any superlaw that forces the values, and if that were so, that law would be a programming law that would raise very serious questions of purposeful intent. BTW, the same would obtain were it shown that there is a superlaw in the physics and chemistry of the cosmos that forces formation of life. Though, with the high degree of contingency involved in cell based life, that is extremely unlikely. KFkairosfocus_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

jazzcat: Could the puddle logically infer that its hole was designed for its existence? That's the question entailed in the analogy. We know that the puddle's reasoning is flawed. The exact fit could be due to design, or it could be due to some underlying process or symmetry. The exact alone is not sufficient to make the determination. And that's the point of the analogy.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Zachriel @112 "Um, it’s a puddle. In any case, that’s the thought-experiment." Here's another thought experiment: Could the puddle logically infer that its hole was designed for its existence? Which sort of indicators would allow the puddle to logically conclude that the hole was finely tuned to allow for the existence of the puddle?jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

jazzcat: Not ONCE did I say that. Jazzpuddle is not jazzcat. Jazzpuddle is a puddle. jazzcat: The puddle in a hole is precisely NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their constrained fit. It holds the puddle, a function of utmost importance to the puddle. jazzcat: Did your house lock/key evolve from a less specified fit to a more specified fit through natural selection? No. They originated by different mechanisms. jazzcat: The problem with the universe is that the lock was SET up from the beginning and remained constant throughout time, there was no primitive less constrained lock. The hole has always fit the puddle staggeringly well.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Semi related: Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012 Excerpt: “For the first decade after the paper [Punctuated Equilibrium] was published, it was the most controversial and hotly argued idea in all of paleontology.,,, Many paleontologists came forward and pointed out that the geological literature was one vast monument to stasis, with relatively few cases where anyone had observed gradual evolution.,, ,, paleontologists all over the world saw that stasis was the general pattern, and that gradualism was rare—and that is still the consensus 40 years later. … In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature apparently the water has no use for the hole hypothesis! :)bornagain77_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Zachriel @ 109 "Jazzpuddle insists the lock-and-key of the puddle and hole is due to design. What is wrong with Jazzpuddle’s reasoning?" Not ONCE did I say that. Quote me, then there is no question what I said. The puddle in a hole is precisely NOT a lock/key relationship that performs a function INDEPENDENT of their constrained fit. If it were then logically you Zachriel would conclude that the lock on your house door lock was not designed but rather evolved naturally from a primitive less constrained lock/key. "In evolution, lock-and-key evolves from a less specified fit to a more specified fit." Then your theory runs counter to uniform and repeated experience. Did your house lock/key evolve from a less specified fit to a more specified fit through natural selection? The problem with the universe is that the lock was SET up from the beginning and remained constant throughout time, there was no primitive less constrained lock.jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

jazzcat: How would the puddle not know its shape is dependent on the shape of the hole? Um, it's a puddle. In any case, that's the thought-experiment. jazzcat: If the puddle knew it was a puddle in a hole why would it NOT know its fluid concept? Because it has no way to vary its shape or to test its contours. It has only the single example, just like humans only have the single example. It's possible that the specifics of what makes the universe what it is have a unifying symmetry, but that still escapes the ken of puddles and humans.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: How would the puddle not know its shape is dependent on the shape of the hole? Why would the puddle not know that its form is fluid and fills empty spaces no matter what type? The shape of the puddle is dependent on the shape of the hole because of what we know, it doesn't matter what the puddle does or doesn't know. If the puddle knew it was a puddle in a hole why would it NOT know its fluid concept?jazzcat_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: You’re obviously not being serious – which is good for me to know. Silverpuddle waves his watery appendages.Zachriel_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply