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.

[Jose Fly]

If an entire universe were "fine tuned for human life", wouldn't we expect human life to be common across that universe? Given that, as far as any of us know, human life only exists on one very tiny speck in this universe, I'd say that contradicts the premise.

[Jose Fly]

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.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Please demonstrate that the constants and parameters could have been any values. So far, that is an unsupported assumption. The same goes for fine-tuning itself. We don't even know that any sort of tuning was involved since we don't have any deep knowledge of the actual process involved in the formation of the universe.

Exactly. That's is one reason why I rarely participate in this specific debate. The very idea that the "universal constants" can even be different than they are is an unsupported assumption, and as soon as you ask the creationist to justify that assumption, you get the stereotypical creationist dodging and evasion.

It's yet another creationist argument that's been done to death. They really don't have anything new, do they?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #10]

Ha "conditions happened to be right" that is funny!

It's not funny ... its an obvoius fact. Earth did not form with life present from day one. Spoiler alert ... life formed after Earth formed, within the conditions that existed already. Do you think life was somehow present as the fledging Earth orbited the sun collecting more and more material as it swept out its orbit, all the while supporting life? Now that would be funny (it it weren't complete nonsense). The conditions on Earth were not suitable for life as we know it during the early Hadean era, for example. Or are you suggesting otherwise? Or even more silly, are you suggesting that the conditions necessary for life as we know it are arbitrary and do not matter in any way?

All of these observed behaviors are nothing to do with ingenuity, creativity, hard work, perseverance, pain, toil or any of that, why of course, all of these are nothing more than conditions happening to be right!

What relevance are those videos supposed to have to the present discussion (ie. conditions on Earth being suitable for the development of life, before that process started)? The Earth is a planet! It does not possess "ingenuity, creativity, hard work, perseverenace, pain, toil, or any of that." Do you seriously think a planet would need to "toil" to create conditions that were suitable for life, or experience pain?

No idea what your point was with this post ... if there was one.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #10]

Ha "conditions happened to be right" that is funny!

It's not funny ... its an obvoius fact. Earth did not form with life present from day one. Spoiler alert ... life formed after Earth formed, within the conditions that existed already. Do you think life was somehow present as the fledging Earth orbited the sun collecting more and more material as it swept out its orbit, all the while supporting life? Now that would be funny (it it weren't complete nonsense). The conditions on Earth were not suitable for life as we know it during the early Hadean era, for example. Or are you suggesting otherwise? Or even more silly, are you suggesting that the conditions necessary for life as we know it are arbitrary and do not matter in any way?

All of these observed behaviors are nothing to do with ingenuity, creativity, hard work, perseverance, pain, toil or any of that, why of course, all of these are nothing more than conditions happening to be right!

What relevance are those videos supposed to have to the present discussion (ie. conditions on Earth being suitable for the development of life, before that process started)? The Earth is a planet! It does not possess "ingenuity, creativity, hard work, perseverenace, pain, toil, or any of that." Do you seriously think a planet would need to "toil" to create conditions that were suitable for life, or experience pain?

No idea what your point was with this post ... if there was one.

We obviously interpret the universe differently, my perception is far removed from yours.

The statement "life began to exist because the conditions happened to be right for life to begin to exist" is known as a "truism".

I'd be interested to hear your continuation though of this sentence: "Conditions happened to be right for life to begin because...".

[Inquirer]

Something to consider:

If a 'religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #14]

We obviously interpret the universe differently, my perception is far removed from yours.

Clearly!

The statement "life began to exist because the conditions happened to be right for life to begin to exist" is known as a "truism".

Although in post 10 you thought it was funny. Are funny and truism synonyms in your interpretation of the universe?

I'd be interested to hear your continuation though of this sentence: "Conditions happened to be right for life to begin because...".

See the truism above. Looks like you're playing word games again. Obviously, the conditions happened to be right for life to begin because ... life did in fact begin in those conditions. It is a trivially simple concept. If the conditions had not been suitable for life to begin, it couldn't have. It they were suitable, it could have, and obviously did on this planet.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #8]

As I was coming up in the apologetic game with the argument from design, John Barrow's name usually came up with the Anthropic Principle (with Frank Tipler).

I never familiarized myself with his work, though...and I am not a big fan of the Anthropic Principle, but he is definitely an asset to the squad.

Thank you.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #14]

We obviously interpret the universe differently, my perception is far removed from yours.

Clearly!

The statement "life began to exist because the conditions happened to be right for life to begin to exist" is known as a "truism".

Although in post 10 you thought it was funny. Are funny and truism synonyms in your interpretation of the universe?

I'd be interested to hear your continuation though of this sentence: "Conditions happened to be right for life to begin because...".

See the truism above. Looks like you're playing word games again. Obviously, the conditions happened to be right for life to begin because ... life did in fact begin in those conditions. It is a trivially simple concept. If the conditions had not been suitable for life to begin, it couldn't have. It they were suitable, it could have, and obviously did on this planet.

Well you apparently missed the intent of that, I wanted you to venture a reason that the conditions happened to be what they were. Instead we get more truisms.

Anyway no debate from me, I never argue with truisms, if that's your understanding of science "things happen they way they do because the conditions make those things happen they way they do" then don't let me spoil the fun for you.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #8]

As I was coming up in the apologetic game with the argument from design, John Barrow's name usually came up with the Anthropic Principle (with Frank Tipler).

I never familiarized myself with his work, though...and I am not a big fan of the Anthropic Principle, but he is definitely an asset to the squad.

Thank you.

I can't recall how I stumbled upon Barrow, it was last year I think I was looking at the foundations of modern physics where symmetry is of huge importance, his book (New Theories of Everything) was truly refreshing.

Here's an interview with him that touches upon theoretical issues including string theory, fascinating to hear these remarks from a person who deeply understands the subject.

[Tcg]

If an entire universe were "fine tuned for human life", wouldn't we expect human life to be common across that universe? Given that, as far as any of us know, human life only exists on one very tiny speck in this universe, I'd say that contradicts the premise.

It'd be a bit like asserting that this massive tanker was fine tuned to support the life of the half inch diameter barnacle that lives of the very tip of the hull:



Of course, even with ship this large and a barnacle that small, the relative dimensions are way off. The ship would need to be exponentially larger.

The timing seems a bit off as well. The universe is 3.8 billion years or so old. Modern humans 200,000 or so. It sure took the universe a very long time to be suitable to support human life.

Beyond the size and timing issues, one has to wonder about a tuner who designed a universe just for humans who would allow them to ruin the only habitat we know humans live in through climate change. Unless the plan was for billions of years of tuning to provide a habitable environment for a few hundred thousand years. Sure seems like a poor use of resources.


Tcg

ETA: Correction as noted by brunumb. The universe is 13.8 billion years or so.