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]

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.

Syllogism test...

1. "My buddies on the forum explained X to you."

2. "Therefore, my buddy's explanation of X is true".


Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test; FAILED.

With my limited knowledge in this field I can't do it any better than those who have already done so.

Then perhaps you should..

1. Educate yourself first.

2. Do not participate in discussions of which you are uneducated.

3. Rid yourself of the "my buddies say it, therefore, it is true" mentality.

I can follow what I have read and find it makes sense to me. If you disagree with the explanations given, fair enough.

Here is what I agree with..

10^10^123.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to brunumb in post #38]

Food for thought on this topic..

[Inquirer]

As far as I'm aware what people might be referring to by "the fine tuning argument" is the fact that modern theoretical physics faces a conundrum in that the reason we have the constants we do, seems to have no theoretical basis.

For example in M-theory there are a truly huge number of distinct theoretical possibilities each with different long term outcomes and differing only in the values of a set of constants, we get a universe like ours with some specified set of constants. The constants can be chosen at will to yield a huge number of different outcomes, that vast majority leading to uninhabitable universes which are otherwise completely self consistent. (Meaning we have no theoretical reason to favor one over the other)

The vast majority of possibilities lead to universes where life could not arise or evolve, like far too hot or far too cold or inability to form planets or certain elements and compounds, only a very very narrow set of values can yield a universe like the one we observe.

Theoretical physicists arrived at M-theory because there were several distinct string theories, each different from the rest yet each self consistent and consistent with observation, M-theory because it generalizes all these string theories, suggesting they are each just a view of a deeper more profound theory.

One of the problems these theorists are grappling with is why? is there some deep - as yet unknown - cause for the constants having just the values they do.

[Jose Fly]

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?

And once again another "discussion" goes straight into "too stupid to bother with" territory.

[We_Are_VENOM]

And once again another "discussion" goes straight into "too stupid to bother with" territory.

No, it is more like the "read before you comment" territory.

Which I doubt you've yet to do.

[Inquirer]

And once again another "discussion" goes straight into "too stupid to bother with" territory.

No, it is more like the "read before you comment" territory.

Which I doubt you've yet to do.

Its far from clear to me, very hard to understand why some people are so opposed to the idea that there might be a reason for these constants. Physicists are puzzled, they do not regard the specific values we have as being random because (if they were random) the probability that a random selection of the values would take on exactly the values we see needed to sustain life, is vanishingly small it seems. This is why there's a search for some deeper theoretical reason that might tie the constants together.

Here's another reputable theoretical physicist explaining why this seems so profound:

The sensitivity to a small changer in the cosmological constant is particularly striking.

[Inquirer]

Here's Roger Penrose answering questions about this too, and he talks about the value We_Are_VENOM has been talking about.

[otseng]

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.

And once again another "discussion" goes straight into "too stupid to bother with" territory.

Moderator Comment

Debating without commenting on others would help in maintaining the quality of the debates.

Please review the Rules.



______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jose Fly]

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.

And once again another "discussion" goes straight into "too stupid to bother with" territory.

Moderator Comment

Debating without commenting on others would help in maintaining the quality of the debates.

Please review the Rules.



______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Usually I just let these moderator comments go, but I have to note that I didn't say anything about any person. My comment was strictly (and purposefully) about the discussion.

[Jose Fly]

Its far from clear to me, very hard to understand why some people are so opposed to the idea that there might be a reason for these constants.

On that question, I don't care one way or the other. My focus in this thread was on the specific arguments being put forth. It definitely strikes me as yet another God of the Gaps.

Physicists are puzzled, they do not regard the specific values we have as being random because (if they were random) the probability that a random selection of the values would take on exactly the values we see needed to sustain life, is vanishingly small it seems. This is why there's a search for some deeper theoretical reason that might tie the constants together.

I've yet to see anyone demonstrate that it's possible for the constants to even be different.