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]

No, but if he starts the car a year later and spills his coffee on the fabric seats, the resulting stain would have no dependence on when the car was built, or how it was built. It is an event that happened long after the building of the car.

No, but it would still be a given that in order for coffee to be spilled on the fabric seats of the car, the car must exist first..and not only exist, but exist via intelligent design.

Earth formed some 9 billion years after Penrose's Big Bang, and the "car" was already built.

Yeah and in your counter-scenario, it doesn't matter how long after the car was built that the spill occurred, the car was built, nevertheless.

So how life proceeded on Earth at that point has no dependence on whether the Big Bang was 9 billion years earlier, or 1 billion, or 50 billion, or how it happened. The physical constants and natural laws were already in place and long established by the time Earth formed, and life developed within those constraints.

The conversation is whether or not the universe is fine tuned for human life.

It either was, or wasn't.

You claiming that "The natural laws were already in place" does nothing to answer or FURTHER the discussion.

Doesn't sound like this debate is for you.

There is no reason to believe that those constants and laws materialized as they did purely so that life forms on Earth could develop billions of years later. Life developed on Earth because the conditions just happened to be right for it.

The conditions of a 1 in 10^10^123 probability doesn't just happen to be met.

That is not how entropy works, Doc.

DNG: So it is far more likely that life arose within a preexisting environment that became suitable for it, rather than the environment being tailored (or designed) specifically so that life could develop.

WAV: Then that would be random chance, and the 10^10^123 probability makes it practically impossible.

There isn't a 1 in 10^10^123 chance that Earth formed

Without the proper fine tuning, you wouldn't even have atoms forming, and you wouldn't have an earth for life to form on.

... there is a 1 in 1 chance because it does exist. Therefore, an environment suitable for life did arise no matter what probability you give to that happening.

No, there is a 10^10^123 chance.

Lets put that in perspective for a minute..

So, what is the value of 10^10?

Answer=10,000,000,000 (10 billion).

So that would be 1 chance in 10 billion, which would still be considered astronomical odds.

And do you remember when I erroneously stated 10^123??

Well, that would make the number even more astronomical!!

But we are talking 10^10^123.

But wait, it gets even more uglier from there.

Lets add more perspective..

We take 10 billion (from above), and we go...

10,000,000,000^123.

Now, you may know how base/exponents work, but for the viewing audience who may not know..here is what makes the number so astronomical..

Because you would go..

10 billion x 10 billion, and then you take the product of that (which is a number so large my calculator states (1.e+20), whatever that means)...

So you take the product of 10 billion x 10 billion, and you multiply it by another 10 billion...which would give you yet another astronomically large number, and you go so on and so forth repeating the same steps, and you do this for 123 times (total).

Just ridiculous, is what it is.

So there is no, "it just happened".

Of course you can believe whatever you like, especially when you have an atheistic worldview to protect, and the God hypothesis must be avoided at all costs, even at 10^10^123 odds.

This is the crux of my argument against using any Big Bang initial condition fine tuning arguments, because whatever the probabality of Earth forming as it did ... it happened.

So basically,

I will believe in a 1 chance in 10^10^123 odds, than to believe in God.

Yeah, it happened, it just didn't happen by random chance as you are postulating.

That is not how entropy works.

Now the question is, given the conditions on early Earth, what is the probability that life formed from nonlife (ie. abiogenesis). No need to invoke fine tuning arguments of any kind.

In order for life to form, you would have to have organic evolution.

But first you would have to have chemical evolution.

But before that, you'd have to have cosmic evolution.

And the chances of any of that happening is 10^10^123.

You do not defy those odds by random chance. Conduct an experiment and see how many times you can toss cards in the air and get a card house to formulate as a result of the card landings.

It aint happening. But you would still have a better chance of that happening, than you would for life to originate on this Earth by random chance.

What if life had not developed on Earth at all? That would not change the history of the universe prior to Earth's formation, or the conditions on Earth prior to life appearing.

Yeah, there was a better probability for life NOT developing on Earth than it was for it to develop.

I did not make a conclusion that the universe was not designed, but that it is awfully inefficient to create a universe where the one planet we know containing life represents a fraction of the total that is in the same category of 1 in a gigantic number as your Penrose initial condition percision number.

Your clarification makes it no less subjective, Doc.

Not that big, but ridicuously large. Would a creator god being be that inefficient?

Not so fast.

It would be insufficient if you knew what the designer's intended purpose was. If God made the vast universe so that his creation can look at it and marvel at it...then I would say God suceeded.

So, please enlighten me on what God's intended purpose was for created such a vast universe, and how do you know?

It wasn't until the 1920s that we even discovered that the universe was not just the Milky way galaxy (Hubble showed that the fuzzy things in people's telescopes seen since the 1700s were actually entire galaxies ... no one knew this before and it was a measly 98 years ago). This changed our knowledge of how big the universe actually was, and made our (Earth) position in it even more irrelevant.

Ok, and I am sure more discoveries have yet to be made. So what?

Again ... life developed because the conditions happened to be right for it.

There was a 10^10^123 chance to 1 that the conditions wouldn't have been right for it.

The conditions were made right for it, it didn't become right for it.

Because that isn't how entropy works. A closed system (the universe) doesn't start with 10^10^123 order.

It just doesn't.

Planets and stars and everything else in the universe developed for the same reason (conditions allowed it). Fusion in the center of stars, chemistry, etc. all proceed because the physical constants and laws developed as they did. Life on Earth is an entirely negligible component of the universe and its matter, processes, etc. If life never developed anywhere in the universe it would have no bearing on the physical constants being what they are. You've got it backwards ... life developed because the conditions happened to be right ... those conditions did not arise with any consideration of whether life would materialize, or not.

Well again, there was a 10^10^123 chance in 1, that the conditions WEREN'T going to be right for life.

There is no defying those odds on one chance, and I am sure you wouldn't put your money against those odds on ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, besides that of the rejection of the intelligent design hypothesis.

Because after all..

"Any explanation, no matter how irrational, or no matter what the odds are against it....is STILL better than the God hypothesis".

That is what this is really about.

[Inquirer]

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

What exactly is your understanding of the "fine tuning" argument? who's specifically are you referring to? can we see what the argument actually is you are contesting?

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Actually as funny as it is/was, he has a point.

Obviously, you pointing out that the conditions happened to be right for life for life to begin tells us nothing...because from the theistic perspective...the conditions were right for life to begin because God made the conditions right.

So I guess I should just leave it at that, as you did.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If an entire universe were "fine tuned for human life", wouldn't we expect human life to be common across that universe?

Well, maybe your definition of where life should be, differs from that of the fine-tuner.

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.

Without fine tuning, life wouldn't exist even in the tiniest speck of the universe.

That is kinda the whole point.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

First off all, I don't think you know me too well (on this forum).

Because if you did, you would know that I don't dodge or evade ANYTHING.

And if you had paid attention to my response, you would see that I addressed the question...and if you have a problem with my answer, then state what the issue is.

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

Michael Jordan didn't need to create a new "fadeaway" jump shot, when the one he'd been using to get BUCKETS over his opponent had been working so well.

[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.

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

Yep. Heck, our own solar system isn't "fine tuned for human life" since the vast majority of it doesn't contain human life, and none of it contained human life for the vast majority of it's existence.

[brunumb]

No, but it would still be a given that in order for coffee to be spilled on the fabric seats of the car, the car must exist first..and not only exist, but exist via intelligent design.

We have prior knowledge of how cars are designed and built. We don't know how the universe formed. We don't know that it was designed. We don't know that any capable designer and builder of universes exists. So, all comparisons and analogies relating to universes are irrelevant. It's all just reaching based on unreliable probabilities and wishful thinking.

[Jose Fly]

Well, maybe your definition of where life should be, differs from that of the fine-tuner.

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

Without fine tuning, life wouldn't exist even in the tiniest speck of the universe.

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

First off all, I don't think you know me too well (on this forum).

Do I know you from another forum?

I addressed the question

Which post number?

Michael Jordan didn't need to create a new "fadeaway" jump shot, when the one he'd been using to get BUCKETS over his opponent had been working so well.

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.

[brunumb]

If an entire universe were "fine tuned for human life", wouldn't we expect human life to be common across that universe?

Well, maybe your definition of where life should be, differs from that of the fine-tuner.

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.

Without fine tuning, life wouldn't exist even in the tiniest speck of the universe.

That is kinda the whole point.

Without a universe capable of producing life, life would not exist. Life exists. The universe is capable of producing it. That's it. Squeezing in fine-tuning is simply an attempt to get a god on the table. But the fact is that no god is necessary.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #21]

No, but it would still be a given that in order for coffee to be spilled on the fabric seats of the car, the car must exist first..and not only exist, but exist via intelligent design.

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. 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). 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.

Yeah and in your counter-scenario, it doesn't matter how long after the car was built that the spill occurred, the car was built, nevertheless.

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 conversation is whether or not the universe is fine tuned for human life.

It either was, or wasn't.

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

You claiming that "The natural laws were already in place" does nothing to answer or FURTHER the discussion.

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. 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).

The conditions of a 1 in 10^10^123 probability doesn't just happen to be met.

That is not how entropy works, Doc.

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.

Without the proper fine tuning, you wouldn't even have atoms forming, and you wouldn't have an earth for life to form on.

Without the universe coming into existence you wouldn't have these things (obviously), but there's no evidence any "fine tuning" was required.

No, there is a 10^10^123 chance.

Lets put that in perspective for a minute..

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

Of course you can believe whatever you like, especially when you have an atheistic worldview to protect, and the God hypothesis must be avoided at all costs, even at 10^10^123 odds.

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

Yeah, it happened, it just didn't happen by random chance as you are postulating.

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. 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.

In order for life to form, you would have to have organic evolution.

But first you would have to have chemical evolution.

But before that, you'd have to have cosmic evolution.

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.

So, please enlighten me on what God's intended purpose was for created such a vast universe, and how do you know?

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

The conditions were made right for it, it didn't become right for it.

That's were we disagree. "Made" implies a creator of some sort, and we have no evidence that any such entity exists now or ever did exist.

There is no defying those odds on one chance, and I am sure you wouldn't put your money against those odds on ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, besides that of the rejection of the intelligent design hypothesis.

Because after all..

"Any explanation, no matter how irrational, or no matter what the odds are against it....is STILL better than the God hypothesis".

That is what this is really about.

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.