Source
r/atheism•
ConfusingPoster

Charge of an electron/chemical bullshit arguments.

A creationist I was talking to argued that if the charge of an electron was only slightly different, then life could not exist. Or something about the planet being impossible to form, or some crap like that, therefore God must exist.

Is this even true?

Now, I'm not a physicist or chemist. I'm a biology undergrad. I don't know what magnitude of variance which life can allow in chemical properties (if any). This argument is a lot like the argument that "the world is perfect, therefore GODLOL!", but it is very specific.

Thanks, yo.

Posted Oct 3, 2010, 2:33 AM UTC

323
camopdude•

It's true that Christians use the Fine Tuning argument. Read the counter argument here.

5
ConfusingPosterOP•

Thank you very much. The links were very insightful, and I learned a lot from it.

1
camopdude•

There are plenty more links out here just like this, it's a common argument that creationists trot out to try to prove the universe was intelligently designed.

2
zhivago•

"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, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

Douglas Adams

5
ConfusingPosterOP•

AH! How could I miss this? Thanks a lot, dude. I am so using this for a humorous spin on the argument. Upvotes for you.

1
[deleted]•

Refer to the anthropic principle. There are many factors (particle weights, constants like pi, etc) that, were they 0.0001% different, would make the Universe unable to support life, or unable to exist at all. However, of course these "factors" are fine tuned for life because life is here to observe them.

3
[deleted]•

I suggest avoid using the term "fine tuned" though...the creationist will immediately say it suggests a "tuner". Every time I've brought up the anthropic principle to a creationist, they fail to understand it (or I fail to explain it properly).

2
ConfusingPosterOP•

I'm actually worrying about this when I use the argument. I mean, we're talking a creationist that can't understand that "theory" and "scientific theory" are two different definitions. Despite it being explained to said person.

2
[deleted]•

Try phrasing it along the lines of: because constants are what they are, life as we know it was able to evolve to the point that were are here to observe and understand it. Had those constants been different, different sorts of life (or no life at all) would have been able to evolve.

2
ConfusingPosterOP•

Perfect response. Thanks a lot. Hopefully he'll understand what the principle is actually trying to say.

1
joejance•

I have also read the argument (cannot find link) that there might be some underlying symmetry that causes these values to be what they are that we don't yet understand. In other words, the fine tuning argument is an instance of a "God of the Gaps" argument or the "Argument from Ignorance" logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

2
ConfusingPosterOP•

I am, indeed, aware of the two concepts. I probably wouldn't use the argument until I find that link. I don't like using arguments that I can't back up with proper evidence or background. It seems so...icky to use something I haven't fact-checked yet.

1
joejance•

I really wish they would teach this stuff in school from Grade K up. Even with the big science load I took in high school and college I never really had a class going deep into these types of logical fallacies. We shouldn't be indoctrinated with religion but instead with logic and reason.

2
[deleted]•

Chemist here, but having knowledge in the subject isn't required to understand. I've heard this argument before, and my response is always the same: Yes, if the charge of an electron was different (or any other fine-tune variable) life as we know it wouldn't exist. That does not necessarily preclude the emergence of life under alternative physical constraints/constants. Our known requirements for 'life' are earth specific because that is the only place we have ever observed it. Who's to say they will never change?

3
ConfusingPosterOP•

Thanks a lot. While I may not have needed extensive chemical knowledge to understand it, it is great to have an expert comment about it.

Have an upvote!

2
[deleted]•

therefore God must exist

non sequitur

2
ConfusingPosterOP•

Try telling that to a creationist. They'd just be like "YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THAT I AM RIGHT!"

I was thinking this, though.

2
[deleted]•

You should look at the unique properties of water which make life possible. The capillary action-allowing plants to bring water up. Water's ability to dissolve. Water is less dense when ice and can float (this allows life in the sea to exist, it acts to insulate the water underneath and keep it from freezing. Water's high specific heat...

But what your saving is also the root of what creationism is so appealing. Organisms seem to be created by something to perfectly work in the world around them. But thats only because the environmental pressures of the world is what created them through evolution.

2
ConfusingPosterOP•

Probably because it's late here, or that you may have made a typo...but could you explain what you are trying to say again, please?

1
JGSPuppet•

Fine Tuned means that God serves an even higher power, which is the laws of physics. He is helpless before the all powerful law that proclaims that "If universe X does not have constant Y equaling value Z, then your universe cannot exist." If God was God, then he could create a universe where you don't need 10000000000000000000000 different planets, stars, space debris, black holes, etc. and be forced to place Earth in just the right region for him to even create life. Basically, if the fine tuned argument stands, then God is a noob.

2
ConfusingPosterOP•

Truer words never spoken.

1
NukeThePopeKnight of /new•

I've just finished reading Hawking's new book, The Grand Design. He says that current theory is that there's not one universe but really, really lots of them, each with its own variation on those essential parameters. Lots of potential universes never even come into existence because those values are off kilter, many were very short-lived and many of them are different in strange ways. The one we're in supports (our) life, and that's why we're around to talk about it. Anthropic principle and all that.

I recommend reading the book to get a much better idea than I can convey in a short inexpertly summarizing paragraph.

2
cloudform511•

I wonder, if the physical constants were different would it be possible that <i>a different form of matter entirely</i> would exist?

It is an interesting question: what is causing matter to exist in the first place? The fact that atoms exist at all (rather than just pure energy say) and furthermore that they can bond together is incredible when you think about it. The infinite universe theorem seems to fill in the gaps, but are there other possibilities as well? Could matter still exist, but be drastically different? (such as a different periodic table)

Anyone know of any theories like this one?

2