Is The Universe Fine Tuned for Human Life?

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

I say yes.

This thread was created in order to discuss/debate what is called the argument from design (teleological argument), which is a classical argument for the existence of God.

For more on what fine tuning is as it pertains to the argument, please read this wikipedia article..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Now, it is well known and established in science, that the constants and values which govern our universe is mathematically precise.

How precise?

Well, please see this article by Dr. Hugh Ross...

https://wng.org/roundups/a-fine-tuned-u ... 1617224984

Excerpt...

"More than a hundred different parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any conceivable kind to exist." (see above article for list of parameters).

Or..(in wiki article above, on fine tuning)..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tune ... e#Examples

When you read the articles, you will find that there isn't much room for error.

If you start with a highly chaotic, random, disordered big bang, the odds are astronomically AGAINST the manifestation of sentient, human life.

How disordered was the big bang at the onset of the expansion...well, physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the chances of life originating via random chance, was 1 chance in 10^10^123 ( The Emperor’s New Mind, pg. 341-344.....according to..

https://mathscholar.org/2017/04/is-the- ... 20universe.

That is a double exponent with 123 as the double!!

The only way to account for the fine tuning of our universe..there are only 3 possibilities..

1. Random chance: Well, we just addressed this option..and to say not likely is the biggest understatement in the history of understatements.

If you have 1 chance in 10^10^123 to accomplish something, it is safe to say IT AIN'T HAPPENING.

2. Necessity: This option is a no-go..because the constants and parameters could have been any values..in other words, it wasn't necessary for the parameters to have those specific values at the onset of the big bang.

3. Design: Bingo. First off, since the first two options are negated, then #3 wins by default...and no explanation is even needed, as it logically follows that #3 wins (whether we like it or not). However, I will provide a little insight.

You see, the constants and values which govern our universe had to have been set, as an INITIAL CONDITION of the big bang. By "set", I mean selectively chosen.

It is impossible for mother nature to have pre-selected anything, because nature is exactly what came in to being at the moment of the big bang.

So, not only (if intelligent design is negated) do we have a singularity sitting around for eons and expanding for reasons which cannot be determined (which is part of the absurdity), but we also have this singularity expanding with very low entropy (10^10^!23), which completely defies everything we know about entropy, to a degree which has never been duplicated since.

So, we have a positive reasons to believe in intelligent design...an intelligent design...a Cosmic Creator/Engineer...

We have positive reasons to believe in a God of the universe.

In closing...

1. No need to downplay fine tuning, because in the wiki article, you will see the fact that scientists are scrambling to try to find an explanation for fine tuning..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tune ... planations

If there was no fine tuning, then you wouldn't need offer any explanations to explain it away, now would you?

2. Unless you can provide a fourth option to the above three options, then please spare me the "but there may be more options" stuff.

If that is what you believe, then tell me what they are, and I will gladly ADD THEM TO THE LIST AND EXPLAIN WHY THEY ALSO FAIL.

3. 10^10^123. Ouch.

[We_Are_VENOM]

We have prior knowledge of how cars are designed and built.

We have prior knowledge of how entropy works, too.

We don't know how the universe formed.

Irrelevant, because the argument is not based on our knowledge of how the universe was formed.

We don't know that it was designed.

We know that random chance wont beat 1 in 10^10^123 odds.

We don't know that any capable designer and builder of universes exists.

We know that only intelligent designers and builders operate with some mathematical precision...not mindless and blind processes.

So, all comparisons and analogies relating to universes are irrelevant.

About as irrelevant as 3-4 sentence paragraphs.

It's all just reaching based on unreliable probabilities and wishful thinking.

10^10^123.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Or maybe there's no "fine tuner" at all.

Well, let me know when you are ready to present such case.

Until then, 10^10^123.

Empty assertion, no different than someone saying "the moon is made of cheese".

Ok, cool; empty assertion.

Maybe that will discourage you from commenting further and I can focus on posters who actually read threads and actually address the argument being made.

Do I know you from another forum?

Nay.

Which post number?

That is for you to find out. You should have figured that out before you made the comment.

Here's the difference....Jordan actually won. He won games, championships, MVP's, etc. Creationism OTOH hasn't won anything. It's lost every court case, no university (outside of fundamentalist Christian ones) teaches it or requires incoming freshman to be versed in it, no scientific organization endorses or utilizes it, no government science agency uses it, and no private sector science companies use it or require their employees to understand it.

Gotcha. Welp, that about settles it, eh?

[brunumb]

We have prior knowledge of how cars are designed and built.

We have prior knowledge of how entropy works, too.

We don't know how the universe formed.

Irrelevant, because the argument is not based on our knowledge of how the universe was formed.

But the car analogy IS based on knowing how a car is produced. You are switching the subject.

We don't know that it was designed.

We know that random chance wont beat 1 in 10^10^123 odds.

Irrelevant. We still don't know that it was designed. And no matter how small the odds, your dodgy one or any other, unless it is zero the event CAN happen.

We don't know that any capable designer and builder of universes exists.

We know that only intelligent designers and builders operate with some mathematical precision...not mindless and blind processes.

We know nothing about how any alleged gods operate.

So, all comparisons and analogies relating to universes are irrelevant.

About as irrelevant as 3-4 sentence paragraphs.

Why use a bulldozer to knock over a wall when a simple sledge hammer will do the job?

It's all just reaching based on unreliable probabilities and wishful thinking.

10^10^123.

Hallelujah brother! Oh, wait. It's a pity that you keep using that figure without really knowing what it represents. You are not preaching from the pulpit to a gullible congregation here.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

Let's focus on this comment from the OP:

"How disordered was the big bang at the onset of the expansion...well, physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the chances of life originating via random chance, was 1 chance in 10^10^123..."

Until you can see that this interpretation is wrong, you can't use the number to support any argument outside of what Penrose was actually talking out. The key part above is "the chances of life originating via random chance", because that chance is not in any way related to how Penrose arrived at this huge number (as described many times in the other thread.

Penrose arrived at the number by assuming 10^80 total baryons (protons and neutrons) in the universe (a guess, obviously), then runs through some arguments about black hole entropy and ends up with an entropy per baryon of 10^43. Multiplying these two numbers gives 10^123 as the logarithm of the total phase space volume (ie. entropy), so the total phase space volume would be e^10^123, but he uses base 10 log because the factor of 2.303 (between base e ln and base 10 log) in this context (of many estimations on top of each other) is irrelevant and this book was apparently meant for the general reader. So he ends up with 10^10^123 for the total phase space volume V of the existing universe. Lastly, he sets W = 1 for some reason (while estimating it initially at 10^10^101 or 10^10^88), where W is the total phase space volume at the Big Bang, and he lands on a ratio of V/W of 10^10^123. This, he argues, is the precision needed in the initial conditions of the Big Bang to end up with the universe we have. The whole derivation is full of assumptions and ballpark estimates.

Where, in all of this, is there any relevance to life originating by random chance? There is no mention of life originating at all! The only possible connection to life that you could make is that any universe like ours would have life because our universe has life, but his arguments (as he says specifically in the video) allow not only for other initial conditions that would produce universes with a galaxy just like ours (therefore containing life), but also potentially universes with other forms of life. Since we have no idea of the percentages for either of these, we have no way of estimating whether these options represent potentially 90% of all the other combinations, or nearly zero. But in any case ... the analysis says nothing about "the chances of life originating via random chance."

[We_Are_VENOM]

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing (and never have) that Earth, or life, could exist without the universe first existing. That's more than obvious.

And I never said that you said otherwise...my point was, you left out the designed/fine-tuned part of the analogy.

That is a key missing ingredient.

My point is that HOW the universe came into existence (natural, god, etc.) is irrelevent to the argument, as is HOW or why it expanded, changed, built stars and galaxies, etc. prior to 4.6 billion years ago when a planet formed that had conditions suitable for life (ie. Earth).

It is relevant if we are trying to pinpoint plausible explanations to explain the effect...which is what the argument is all about.

Even if there was "fine tuning" by some creator, by the time Earth formed the tuning was done.

Life then developing on Earth happened without regard to any of these prior events, which at that point are historical. All of the rules for physics, chemistry, etc. had been in place and operating for billions of years before life on this planet appeared.

You are contradicting yourself.

On one hand, your hypothetical begins with a creator who fine tuned the universe.

Then you say the life which developed on earth would have happened without regard to the prior (fine tuning) events.

Yet, the life which developed wouldn't be possible without the fine tuned events in the first place.

This is a blatant contradiction. Cmon now, people.

Lets try to keep our assertions within the confines of rationale.

See above ... this isn't anything I'm arguing against. Obviously the universe came into existence somehow, but that mechanism isn't relevant to life developing on Earth billions of years later.

The argument isn't about the universe just merely coming into existence.

The argument is about a universe that came into existence and tied to it; the mathematical precision needed for life to be permissible on earth.

It wasn't. At least there's no evidence for it that anyone has ever presented that makes any sense.

You can certainly believe whatever it is you want.

But what you believe contradicts science (entropy) and if you like it, I love it.

If the discussion is whether the universe was "fine tuned" for life it is relevant because on the one planet that we know life did develop on, the natural laws and physical constants that were supposedly fine tuned had their values for bllions of years without any (known) life developing.

First off, you keep placing "fine tuned" in quotations and here you say "supposedly" as if you dont buy in to the whole fine tuning thing.

That is a crying shame, considering the fact that fine tuning is well established in science and you were provided the links and information which proves such.

Smh.

It has gotten to the point now where the evidence for God is so overwhelming that you have to reject science in order to reject God.

Then Earth comes along and life develops here, and the life forms we have are compatible with the environment here on Earth. That is no coincidence. Life developed here because the conditions were suitable for it to happen ... no fine tuning required (nor is is relevant).

Again, you are entitled to believe what you want.

Being successful in 1 chance in 10^10^123 doesn't just happen by mere chance.

It was more of a planned event.

Keep hanging onto the entropy idea ... but that 10^10^123 number of Penrose is his estimate for how "precise" the initial conditions of the Big Bang had to be to result in a universe exactly like ours. It is NOT the probability of a "life permitting" universe existing. Until you get that significant point, all the comments you make using that number are meaningless. It doesn't describe what you think it does.

Well, when you become aware of another universe existing out there besides our own, then we will get Penrose to calculate the initial conditions needed for life to form in that universe.

Until then, lets continue to focus on this universe.

Without the universe coming into existence you wouldn't have these things (obviously)

Almost sounds like a poor man's Anthropic Principle.

, but there's no evidence any "fine tuning" was required.

Denial. I know, it is tough, isn't it?

I'd hope anyone reading this knows 8th grade math and how exponents work.

If not...free education.

Now this is something I can agree with ... the odds for any god beings existing is 1 in 10^10^123.

Went over your head.

I've never claimed random chance, and this has been pointed out many times (without any response usually).

Chemistry isn't random, and a lot of physics isn't random (eg. photons don't interact with matter randomly). Stars aren't just random assemblies of molecules, nor are planets or neutron stars.

Again, without fine tuning, there wouldn't even be chemistry. There wouldn't be photons, or matter.

You are continuously placing the cart before the horse and you're not addressing the bigger issue of how can low entropy have been an initial condition of the big bang...and how could those parameters have been so mathematically precise from the onset?

The problems continue and will continue.

But you need to constantly claim pure randomness to hold on to ridiculous probability numbers, so that a god claim can then be made. As Jose pointed out ... the game has not changed in many decades.

Pure chance (randomness) is one of only three options you have, and it is an easy process of elimination.

The 10^10^123 odds makes light work of the pure chance option.

The argument from contingency makes light work of the necessity option.

Intelligent design is the only game left in town, which is unfortunate for you.

And? Again, no one is arguing that the universe didn't come into existence as a necessary condition for chemistry, planets, life, etc. This is obvious. The probability that an exact universe like ours may well be 10^10^123, but that has nothing to do with the probability of life arising, or whether the universe was fine tuned for life.

That is nonsense. If the calculation would apply to an exact universe like ours, then it must apply to our universe, because our universe itself is exactly like ours.

And you are simply WRONG. Please do not misrepresent the number because you are going to come across as disingenuous if you do so.

The number corresponds to the improbability of life arising by pure chance.

You are simply downplaying the number because your worldview cannot account for the precision needed for life to exist.

And of course; when you cant refute the science, reject the science...correct?

Well, my opinion is that there are not such things as god beings because there is no evidence for them.

Syllogism test..

1. There is no evidence for UFO's.

2. Therefore, no UFO's exist.

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test; FAILED.

They are inventions of the human mind so did not create anything. But if there was a god who created the universe as vast as it is, and did it all so some humans could inhabit a tiny planet of no signficance in the grand scheme of things, and a species that will likely exist for only a miniscule, insignificant period of time before going extinct, it all seems a giant waste of time and effort for such a being. Makes no sense.

Nonsense. God could exist regardless of whether or not YOU deem most of the universe that he created as a waste of space.

Just a ridiculous argument.

And i provided an explanation to this anyway, which was that God created all the vast space for man to look and marvel at...this is my third time saying this and you keep ignoring it..yet you persist in using such a lame argument like that is such a big deal breaker lol.

That's were we disagree. "Made" implies a creator of some sort

Then disagree, we must.

, and we have no evidence that any such entity exists now or ever did exist.

Pure chance: Nope, 10^10^123 odds. Aint happening.

Necessity: Nope, because our universe had a beginning, and nothing with a beginning can be considered necessary.

Designer: Yup. Intelligent designers are known to engineer processes and functions, with mathematical precision.

You've offered little to NOTHING, Doc.

I would put money at those kinds of odds against gods existing, but only because there is zero convincing evidence (to me) that they exist. I see no reason to believe something exists without any evidence or reason. But I agree that gods are a hypothesis ... just (so far) a completely unsupported one.

Those are your opinions.

10^10^123 is the fact.

[We_Are_VENOM]

But the car analogy IS based on knowing how a car is produced. You are switching the subject.

The car analogy is based on knowing how entropy works, and that mindless and blind processes do not produce machines.

Irrelevant. We still don't know that it was designed.

We do, if we didn't have an atheistic worldview to cling on to.

And no matter how small the odds, your dodgy one or any other, unless it is zero the event CAN happen.

Lol anything but the G-word. Talk about faith.

It aint happening, bru.

We know nothing about how any alleged gods operate.

Gen 1:1 is how God operated.

Why use a bulldozer to knock over a wall when a simple sledge hammer will do the job?

Good point. I don't want you over exerting yourself on here by typing a mere 6 sentences.

Hallelujah brother! Oh, wait. It's a pity that you keep using that figure without really knowing what it represents. You are not preaching from the pulpit to a gullible congregation here.

Tell me, what does it represent??

[otseng]

Cmon now, Doc. You can do better than that.

Your post lacks substance, as usual.
Smh.
I may have such discussions with someone else, and I predict you will peek your head in the discussion for an occasional typical 4 sentence paragraph.
That is all you've done thus far during my tenure on this forum, and I don't expect anything different.

Moderator Final Warning

Please debate without all the personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

Food for thought on this topic.

[brunumb]

Tell me, what does it represent??

If you go back and have a look at the posts in this thread relating to the Penrose number you will see that it has been explained to you. With my limited knowledge in this field I can't do it any better than those who have already done so. I can follow what I have read and find it makes sense to me. If you disagree with the explanations given, fair enough.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

A little late to the party...

Based on the reasoning in the OP, I can also state that the universe is fine tuned for atheists.

So, if the universe were designed (and not just a result of natural processes of always existing energy/something), then it is specially designed such that atheists can exist and show the errors and bad reasoning used in apologetics.

From the linked Wikipedia article, I guess we can choose:

Alien design
One hypothesis is that extra-universal aliens designed the universe. Some believe this would solve the problem of how a designer or design team capable of fine-tuning the universe could come to exist.[36] Cosmologist Alan Guth believes humans will in time be able to generate new universes.[37] By implication, previous intelligent entities may have generated our universe.[38] This idea leads to the possibility that the extra-universal designer/designers are themselves the product of an evolutionary process in their own universe, which must therefore itself be able to sustain life. It also raises the question of where that universe came from, leading to an infinite regress.

John Gribbin's Designer Universe theory suggests that an advanced civilization could have deliberately made the universe in another part of the Multiverse, and that this civilization may have caused the Big Bang.[39]

Now, given this is the Science and Religion subforum, is there any actual science that supports the OP assertion? I haven't seen any linked to or mentioned yet. Yes, we have science that supports some constants. Now, do we have any science that supports these constants were 'fine tuned' or 'designed'? That would be Nobel worthy as we have no evidence of the 'fine tuner' or 'designer' that I'm aware of. Feel free to link the relevant peer reviewed research.