New Miscellany: fine tuning, theodicy, climate, evolution (General)

by dhw, Monday, March 10, 2025, 11:16 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning again

DAVID: This is a specific universe of a type that allows life to appear anywhere in it. In any other form of universe life would not/could not happen. We observe the 26 constants but cannot explain the underlying mechanism that makes them the way they are. Secondarily, a life-friendly environment is required as on the Earth. This is the accepted version of fine-tuning.

dhw: The third quote is Siegel’s sole mention of fine-tuning, but he has left out the crucial biochemical and environmental fine-tuning. Of course the universe as it is ALLOWS life, or makes life POSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean that ”the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”. Without biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, life could NOT appear, and the only place that we know has this fine tuning is Planet Earth. Therefore, as you agreed on March 3rd, the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life to appear. Please stop disagreeing with yourself.
(David’s red. Dhw’s bold)

DAVID: The first bolded/colored statement above is the essence of the fine-tuning concept. I have agreed to your point to add secondarily a local friendly-to-life climate.

You are deliberately ignoring the whole point of this discussion. Allowing life, or making it possible, is not enough to produce life! Life requires biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, without which it cannot exist. Indeed, the sheer complexity – the fine tuning - of living things (and their interaction with the all-important, fine-tuned hospitable environment) is a crucial factor for your faith in the existence of a designer. It is therefore absurd to claim that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”, when as far as we know, the fine-tuning for life has taken place only on Planet Earth. That is my view of fine-tuning.

DAVID (March 3): I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine tuning in my statement.

dhw: […] then of course we can close the discussion.

DAVID: Yes, close.

Please stop disagreeing with yourself.

Theodicy

DAVID: Without the good there is no evil.
And:
DAVID: Without life no evil people would exist.

dhw: So how does that explain why a supposedly all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of everything created evil people, murderous viruses, lethal “natural” disasters etc.? Did he want evil? Was he powerless to prevent it?

DAVID: The good came with the evil side effects. God had to accept them.

Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God had to accept that he was powerless to prevent the evil he had created, and did not have the knowledge to create the world he wanted (assuming that in his all-goodness he disapproved of evil). Your view of God is as illogical as your attempts to prove that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life, although only Planet Earth is known to be fine-tuned for life.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

dhw: Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.

DAVID: I only protest your degree of urgency.
And:
DAVID: We agree on the effects humans have and should mitigate them, but you want it faster than I do.

I have not specified a speed. You agree that we need to start now, and we must proceed at a speed which will balance the need to avoid increasing damage to the environment against the need to avoid social and economic disaster. I don’t know why you are so desperate to withdraw your agreements with me.

Evolution

DAVID: It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.

dhw: Interesting. Instead of all evolution being geared to us and our food, you now seem to agree that your God might have created a free-for-all, but later intervened with dabbles to create humans. Please confirm.

DAVID: All one process with dog-eat-dog from the very beginning.

dhw: The free-for-all dog-eat-dog from the very beginning is the opposite of an evolution designed solely to create humans plus food. Humans as a new idea and a late dabble would neatly counter your ridicule of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. […]

DAVID: God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.

dhw: I have no objection to the theory of evolution. I only object to the absurdity of an all-powerful God who is messy and inefficient. You refuse to consider alternatives.

DAVID: I refuse to accept humanized God forms.

You have proposed that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, may or may not love us, may want a relationship with us, may want us to recognize his work and worship him, and probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Furthermore, a God whose designing talents are messy, cumbersome and inefficient sounds all too human to me. Why do you refuse to accept your own humanizing proposals?