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

by dhw, Thursday, March 13, 2025, 12:19 (1 day, 1 hours, 25 min. ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning again

DAVID: The universe had no life until the Earth evolved. All I am pointing out is another Earth-like place can pop up and have life, because of the universe's construction.

There is no disagreement on this. But that is not all you have pointed out. You keep ignoring your statement that “THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE TO APPEAR.” In order for life to appear, a planet must be environmentally and biochemically fine-tuned. The entire universe is NOT environmentally and biochemically fine-tuned for life to appear. Therefore the entire universe is not fine-tuned for life to appear.

A basis for research

QUOTE: “Astronomers have now identified nearly 6,000 planets orbiting a menagerie of alien suns. Some even hope to use JWST [James Webb Space Telescope] to characterize a handful of potentially habitable alien worlds."

DAVID: active research into atmospheres looking for alien life potentials presumes the universe is fine-tuned everywhere. This is a primary point and dhw's additional requirement of an Earth-like spot is secondary.

It presumes no such thing. They hope (they don’t even presume) to find a handful of potentially habitable alien worlds, though in terms of the environment alone, even that remains a potential and not a fact. Only biochemical fine-tuning can fulfil the potential. So how can the requirement of a habitable spot, let alone biochemical fine-tuning be secondary if life is impossible without it? How can the entire universe be fine-tuned for life if life is only possible in a tiny proportion of the universe?

Theodicy

DAVID: We are alive, enjoying life, thanks to God. And you want to complain that a perfect God did not give you a perfect evil-less existence. It is obvious He couldn't.

dhw: The theodicy problem is not a complaint by me, and has nothing whatsoever to do with enjoyment of life. The explanation that your all-powerful God obviously did not have the power to avert evil is a contradiction in terms. Your “proportionality” argument is totally irrelevant, because evil exists. Just be honest, and admit that you have no idea how to reconcile the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God with the “obvious” fact that the creator of all things created a system which he knew would produce evil. There is no harm in admitting ignorance – we agnostics do it all the time.

DAVID: I'm not ignorant in accepting God's works with evil attached.

Acceptance has nothing to do with theodicy, which is the quest for an explanation. If you can’t explain why an all-good, all-powerful God creates evil, or is powerless to prevent it, then just admit that it makes no sense to you, instead of lurching from one digression (e.g. “proportionality”) or contradiction (he’s all-powerful but powerless) to another?

Evolution

dhw: You know perfectly well what you mean by enjoy, interest, love, etc., and we are dealing with your concept of God’s possible nature and purposes. If you think your own words don’t mean what you mean, then why use them? They are the human-like thought patterns and emotions which you think we may have in common with your God. Stop dodging.

DAVID: You are still confused about the concept. Of course we understand each other. But we have no idea how God accepts it or applies it.

We’re not talking about "how" but about "if". YOU know what you mean by enjoy, interest, love etc., and the only question is IF he does or doesn’t enjoy, have interest, love etc. There is no “allegory”, and it’s you who have proposed all of these as possible motives for his creation of life and us, so please stop pretending that your own proposals don’t “humanize” him. In any case, why should you assume that your God would NOT endow his creations with some of his own thought patterns and emotions?

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

QUOTE: "The poison, tetrodotoxin, the same poison used by pufferfish, paralyzed the female while the male copulated with her. His efforts continued until the female began to recover. The poison used by the male was made by bacteria that lived in its body.

DAVID: I guess it is better than being eaten, although a participating partner makes it all more enjoyable.

dhw: Great comment! Fascinating procedure. We have had countless proofs of bacterial intelligence and of symbiosis. I find it hard to imagine that your God would have instructed the female to eat the male and would also have instructed the male to paralyze the female in its own defence. The alternative: intelligent cell communities and intelligent bacteria working together to ensure their survival in the dog-eat-dog, octopus-eat-octopus free-for-all of evolution’s history.

DAVID: The symbiosis is not surprising.

Of course not. Don’t you agree, though, that it demonstrates intelligent cooperation between bacteria and the cell communities of the octopus? Or do you think your God gave different instructions to the female's and the male's bacteria and cell communities?