Richard Dawkins admet qu'il n'est pas certain que Dieu n'existe pas - vidéo

[shadok]

@Bachi/AAnis

Il ne faut pas s’arrêter à la première phrase sans prendre en compte les arugments donnés après. Une probabilité exprime la certitude qu'on peut avoir sur un événement précis, une probabilité 0 exprime un événement impossible à réaliser et une probabilité 1, un événement certain. Or si on prend en compte les nombreux paramètres qui doivent être réunis pour donner naissance à l’univers et à la vie sur terre, les probabilités ne sont pas en faveur du hasard mais plutôt à l’existence d’un ingénieur ou créateur. La probabilité calculée par Roger Penrose, que notre environnement existe parmi tous les résultats possibles du Big Bang, est de l'ordre de 1 sur 10^10^123. Ce nombre est tellement infime qu’il est même difficile de concevoir ce qu'il signifie.

Le professeur Frank Salisbury, de l’Université de l’Utah (États-Unis), a calculé la probabilité de formation spontanée d’une molécule d’ADN simple, essentielle à l’apparition de la vie. Les calculs ont abouti à une probabilité si infime qu’elle est considérée comme mathématiquement impossible : la formation de cette molécule par réactions chimiques naturelles aurait pu se produire sur 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 (10^20) planètes “ hospitalières ” au cours d’une période de quatre milliards d’années. Quelles sont les chances qu’une seule molécule d’ADN se soit formée dans ces conditions ? Selon ses calculs, une sur 10^415.

L’existence d'un créateur est une évidence mathématique ! Renier la vérité perçue par l'âme est synonyme d'arrogance.

[Sidi Noun]

Les probabilités s'appliquent à des évènements à venir et non déjà avenus ou accomplis.

Les calculs ont abouti à une probabilité si infime qu’elle est considérée comme mathématiquement impossible

Alors il en découle qu'on peut tout aussi considérer que zéro n'est pas égal à zéro. C'est du baratin. Il est aisé de montrer l'existence d'objets mathématiques très banals alors qu'on peut choisir leur probabilté aussi infime qu'ont veut. La mesure de l'improbabilité n'a rien de significatif en elle-même.

[Evidences]

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us

Victor J. Stenger






Réfutation par 14 points :

1. Essentially this argument is just a variation on the argument from design. The key difference here is that it misrepresents actual scientific evidence in such a way to support an unscientific conclusion. A more scientific conclusion would be to state that there is some unknown natural phenomenon to explain this apparent "fine tuning". It is also worth mentioning that a counter-argument to design, natural-law argument, and the anthropic principle is also a counter-argument to fine-tuning. See below.
2. A problem arises from the premise that the cosmological constants are in fact 'fine tuned' at all. This premise assumes that there is a certain range of values that each constant could assume. The greater these ranges, the more unlikely that a given set of constants would have assumed the values we observe. However, to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values. If in a lottery one number were drawn from a pot of five numbers, then winning the lottery would become comparatively likely. Likewise, even if a trial with an extremely unlikely outcome - say winning an actual national lottery - were repeated a sufficient number of times, the outcome would become likely to occur overall. (See next point)
3. Scientists theorize that given the infinite nature of time and space, an infinite number of other unobservable universes could exist parallel to our own, each with infinite variations of constants. This is known as the multiverse theory. Given infinite possibilities, the formation of a universe such as our own is not so inconceivable.
4. Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons or other particles equal or greater than that of a proton. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.
5. The Earth's total mass is 5.9736×10^24 kg while the estimated total biomass on Earth is around 7×10^13 kg. This means that the percentage of life on Earth is 1.17182269 × 10^-9. That is .00000000117%. The Earth, let alone the universe, is hardly fine tuned for life. Man has created and tested much more finely tuned mediums for simple life in the form of specialized agar solutions that support life/medium ratios far greater than .00000000117%.
6. In order for the probability argument to be valid, the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. That is, one cannot claim that the gravitational constant and the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, since they are clearly related. The electromagnetic force is mediated by massless photons which travel at the speed of light, so therefore the strength of this force is likely related to the speed of light. Similar relationships may yet emerge between other constants.
7. If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist? The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical.
8. The initial premise of the argument is that in order for life to exist, the universe must have such properties that warrant a designer. However in this line of reasoning, the designer of those properties would exist in a state where none of these properties were true. Therefore any properties deemed to require a designer can't be necessary for existence in the first place, as the designer can exist without them. The argument is self-refuting.
9. If one starts with the assumption that humanity is an accident, the fine tuning argument makes no sense since if we are an accident, no fine tuning was necessary. For the fine tuning argument to make any sense, one has to start with the assumption that humanity is not an accident, which begs the question of a creator. But since the purpose of the argument is to prove that there is a god who created us, any such assumption renders the argument circular.
10. If we are to consider the chance of the universe existing the way it did, surely the same principle of chance can be reversed. What is the chance that a truly omnipotent God, as proposed by many religions, made the constants, factors and general details of the universe as he did? he would have infinite possibilities meaning the probability would be 1 in infinity - much less than the supposed calculations of those presenting the argument.
11. It may be useful to realize that the vast majority of the universe is uninhabitable by any form of life, albeit human life. If there are so many regions of space, and indeed our own planet, that are uninhabitable by life, then why should we call the universe "fine-tuned"?.
12. The argument also seems to call into question the omnipotence of the creator. If he were infinitely powerful, why did he make life constrained to survive only in a tiny fraction of the universe? The case for supernatural intervention would be much more plausible if humans found themselves floating in the vacuum of space, on a toxic planet with no oxygen, or somewhere else where our continued survival was a complete mystery to scientists. As it is, we find life only in areas where the facts of biology tell us it can exist. This is exactly what we would expect if we were not the products of omnipotence.
13. When considering the arguments fourth premise, which includes "...created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal...", the question must be raised of how does the God being posited as the creator of said universe gain the attributes stated by the argument? the argument is in no way structured to determine the precise attributes of the personal being of which the presenter asserts. It is not necessary for the creator to be all-loving, he could be making us with the notion of torturing us for all we know. It is not necessary for the creator to be eternal, he could have fizzled out in the creation or could have died of some unfathomable cause. And it is likewise unnecessary for the creator to be omniscient and/or omnipotent, there are logical arguments against the proposition of such attributes, and the being need not be all-powerful/knowing - he could just be really, really powerful and know a lot, but not everything.
14. It may be worth noting, also, that the some of the constants specified not not require arbitrary precision. With regards to the Goldilocks zone, the amount Earth can be distanced from the sun is approximately 37%, right out to Mars (yes, our solar system has two planets in the Goldilocks zone). The point being that the so-called precision we find, is actually not that precise in reality (this is one of the more extreme cases, most others can be changed but the difference being not as much).

Firstly, it has to be pointed out that for an omnipotent God the fundamental constants would be irrelevant. An omnipotent God could have created us in a universe with any set of constants had he chose to. But this is not the line of thinking the theist takes. The constants had to be what they are because, as they claim, if they were different we would have no life. If the constants necessarily had to be what they are than that implies that there is some set of governing rules that even God must follow, that supersede his power. If God HAD to fine-tune the universe to these particular set of constants because not doing so would not have allowed him to bring life into existence (and as they claim in their argument, a different set and there's no life) then God is indeed NOT omnipotent.
Not withstanding the obvious fact that the universe really isn't very congenial towards life, as 99.999% of the observed universe is uninhabitable, Vic Stenger in his book God: The failed hypothesis, quotes a private communication with Martin Wagner in which he points out that:
"In fact, the whole argument from fine-tuning ultimately makes no sense. As my friend Martin Wagner notes, all physical parameters are irrelevant to an omnipotent God. 'he could have created us to live in a hard vacuum if he wanted.'"

Bertrand Russell:
"Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary."

ironchariots.org

[Evidences]

We can view the universe as one of those massive safes that banks keep in their vaults, with a number of dials that must be set to specific values in order to open it. However, in our example, these dials can be literally set to any number, so that an infinite number of combinations are possible. The one combination that will open the safe is analogous to the values of the physical constants of the universe that allow the existence of intelligent life.

The "fine tuning" argument claims that it is, for all intents, impossible to randomly set the the values of the dials and, simply by chance, arrive at the correct combination that will open the safe. Only someone who actually knows the combination can open it. In the argument, this requires the existence of a god who knows the precise setting that will allow life to arise.

However, if this god is the creator of the universe and everything in it, then he is not limited to simply turning the dials on the safe. He must also have been responsible for building the safe itself, and setting the combination that allows it to be opened. This means he also has the ability to adjust the locking mechanism of the safe so that any combination he wants will open it. Therefore, it can no longer be said that only one combination is capable of opening the safe. Now, there is a literally infinite number of combinations that can open it.

Restated in the form of the argument itself: The (apparent) fact that only a specific combination of values of physical constants allows life to arise is, itself, an expression of a fundamental law of the universe. If God can change the values of those physical constants, there is no reason to believe he cannot also change the more fundamental laws that limit the conditions under which life will arise.
This has two fatal consequences for the "fine tuning" argument:


1) If God can, in fact, adjust the "combination" of the safe to any values he wants, this completely refutes the claim that life can only arise under a very specific set of circumstances. Rather, if such a God exists, life should be able to arise under any set of circumstances whatsoever, with infinite possibilities. The "fine tuning" argument, therefore, can no longer be used as evidence for the existence of such a God.

2) If, on the other hand, God cannot adjust the "combination", then this raises a situation that most theists would find unacceptable. It raises the question of who or what actually is responsible for creating the safe, and deciding on its combination. God, in this scenario, is reduced to being a low-level employee of the bank, who is able to open the safe, but is not responsible for the operation of the safe itself, nor entrusted with the ability to set the combination of the safe. Those responsibilities must be taken over by some entity more powerful and important than God. This is incompatible with most theistic beliefs, particularly the Abrahamic monotheistic ones.
ironchariots.org

[soufiane-oujda]

Au delà des différents points de vues de chacun, ce qui est sure. C'est que c'est impossible de voir un débat de ce genre dans notre région, un débat entre scientifique, religieux et philosophe ... un vrai débat digne d'une université du calibre d'oxford.

Pourquoi dans nos universités on ne peut imaginer un débat pareil ?

[absent]

Salam soufiane,

Pas c'Est une question dargent. les conférenciers ne viennent pas gratuitement. si tu vas au moyen orient dans les universités privées ( Américains ect), tu trouvera ce gendre de conférence. Comme on dit money makes the world go round.

[soufiane-oujda]

Salam yarmoracen

Je comprends que c'est question de fric et je ne parlais pas d'inviter des étrangers, mais juste des locaux dans ces universités arabes ou maghrébins pour avoir ce genre de débats. Ca ne se fait pas en général ... et j’en doute que ca se fait en inde ou chine aussi, ce genre de débats ne se font que dans les prestigieuses universités occidentales a harvard ou oxford … on peut voir en live des penseurs qui pensent sur l’existence et le future de l’humain sous l’ongle des résultats les plus récents qu’ont atteints les sciences fondamentales : soit en mathématiques, physique ou sciences naturelles …

Et franchement quand je vois dawkins dans ce débat, un scientifique que je ne connaissais pas trop auparavant j’avoue. Il suffit de l’entendre, la façon par laquelle il pense vraiment ce qu’il dit, c’est quand même un homme qui a pris du temps et peut être beaucoup de temps pour réfléchir sur ce genre de questions existentielles … un truc que beaucoup de soit disant religieux ou défenseurs de la religion ne l’ont pas fait : mon père, ma mère, ma société est religieuse d’une religion X alors automatiquement j’en suis aussi de cette religion et je vais la défendre coute que coute … c’est un peu le cas de la grande partie des religieux surtout fondamentaliste. Alors que ce monsieur aussi athée ou agnostique soit t’il a pris du temps et même beaucoup de temps a réfléchir a cette question fondamentale pour toute humaine ce n’est pas rien et ce n’est pas rien aussi que l’univ oxford l’invite dans ce genre de débats … félicitation a cet occident.

Parce que en dehors du coté financier de rapaces, militaire et dominateur de l’occident il reste ce coté académique qui est puissant universel et les univs du tiers monde n’arriverons pas a faire de même … j’ai savouré ce débat !

[absent]

les univs du tiers monde n’arriverons pas a faire de même … j’ai savouré ce débat !

Les universités cubaines font mieux. Les universités Iraniennes aussi.

moi je suis convaincu que c'est une question d'argent et de gestion c'es tout.

[Mohamed_Rédha]

Au delà des différents points de vues de chacun, ce qui est sure. C'est que c'est impossible de voir un débat de ce genre dans notre région, un débat entre scientifique, religieux et philosophe ... un vrai débat digne d'une université du calibre d'oxford.

Tu oublis les débats (مناظرات) de Ahmed Didat..

moi je suis convaincu que c'est une question d'argent et de gestion c'es tout.

Je suis d'accord.. sinon comment expliquer l'origines des fonds nécessaires pour faire une compagne publicitaire digne d'une multinationale comme l'Oréal, sur le sujet : "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" .

[Lenasia]

@Simplenova

Ta mort est la porte à toutes tes réponses, soit un enfer et paradis comme le croyants le prétendent et là c'est ma barré pour toi, soit tu finis en un organisme décomposé et là mon vieux, je peux t'assurer que tu ne vaux pas grand chose, autant vivant que mort.

Si on se compare à la taille de l'univers, on est effectivement pas grand chose. Paradis, Enfer, ou pas, il est évident que nous ne sommes rien !