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.

[Inquirer]

By saying "once again, some theists try and wedge the gods into"

But that's accurate, as this thread shows.

as if you somehow know that that's an invalid explanation.

Except I've never said that either. If you'll notice, I've simply pointed out that the assertion that the constants could have been different is just that...an empty assertion. And by the same token, so is the assertion that they couldn't have been different. As we covered, the current state is that we simply don't know.

Yet some theists insist that 1) the constants could have been different, and 2) gods are the reason they're what they are. They also tend to present them as certainties.

So if you're looking for people to criticize for not keeping an open mind, you should start with those folks rather than folks like me whose position is "We don't know".

Furthermore what is surprising about theists attributing something to God? that's what theists do, especially in a forum such as this.

If they presented it as a belief or opinion, that'd be one thing. Presenting it as an established conclusion OTOH is quite different.

Who presented what exactly? I know your fond of paraphrasing but it's unhelpful in a debate.

[Jose Fly]

Who presented what exactly?

The author of the OP and subsequent posts in this thread is a good example.

I know your fond of paraphrasing but it's unhelpful in a debate.

I'm not going down that road again with you. Three times now you've tried to complain about that, and each time after I went through the trouble of looking up, linking to, and posting direct quotes, you just walked away.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #35]

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.

You manufactured a contradiction from whole cloth. First, what is my hypothetical"? I did not propose any mechanism for origin of the universe (god, Big Bang, or other), so am not even considering a creator who may have fined tuned the universe. Second, I never said life would have developed on Earth without regard to any fine tuning events. I said that IF any such event did happen the relevant constants were set long before Earth even formed, so life would have proceeded on Earth as it did regardless of HOW the physical constants got their values (fine tuning, or otherwise). Lastly, I've repeatedly agreed that life would not have been possible without the right conditions for it (including values of any physical constants or initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang). My point is that the development of life on Earth did not depend on HOW the physical constants got their values billions of years prior. You keep ignoring the word HOW and then proceeding to argue a completely different issue.

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.

I don't, and in prior posts have referred to it as nonsense.

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.

I'm pretty sure I've never provided any links or information which proves fine tuning, and it certainly isn't well established in science. Scientific studies have found values for many physical constants, and many people have remarked how their values require the precision they do for many things to exist or happen, but the idea that some god being or creator "fine tuned" them is not science or supported by science. Demonstrate that even one of the thousands of gods that humans have invented actually existed (or does exist), and you'd have a basis for a fine tuning argument. Without that, it is an empty hypothesis.

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

At least it is monumentally unlikely. But since that number has nothing to do with the probability of a life-permitting universe appearing it has no relevance to that issue.

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.

Since he didn't calculate the initial conditions for life to form in this universe, how is he going to calculate it for another universe? Next time you speak with him, ask him what percentage of the total number of universes possible from various Big Bang initial conditions could result in universes with galaxies just like ours (so having life), and what percentage might yield life of another kind. Then you might have a basis from which to guess the probability that you keep referring to (ie. of life appearing by mere chance from any arbitrary Big Bang initial condition). I'm still surprised you so strongly believe in the Big Bang hypothesis and Penrose's number.

Went over your head.

I think the joke actually went right by you ... look at how you worded the comment I replied to.

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

No ... without the physical constants having the values they do the present universe would be very different. There is no need to bring fine tuning into the discussion as there is no evidence for a fine tuner, or that the constants were actually "tuned" and did not naturally obtain their values due. You're assuming fine tuning by a creator.

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?

We don't know the conditions at the instant of the Big Bang, or its entropy (and neither does Penrose). He's arguing that for the second law of thermodynamics to be valid, it must have been a lower entropy state than the universe is in now, then proceeds to estimate how "precise" the initial conditions must have been to land at where we are now (and he calls that fine tuned in his video, but that is a completely different meaning (as he also points out) than the more common fine tuning of the physical constants).

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

That number still doesn't represent what you think if does, and using it constantly negates some of your key arguments. It has nothing to do with a probability of a life-permitting universe appearing by random chance.

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.

See post 34 and let's hear your response. You're misunderstanding it completely.

Syllogism test..

1. There is no evidence for UFO's.

2. Therefore, no UFO's exist.

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test; FAILED.

I didn't say that gods DO NOT exist ... I said it is my opinion that they don't exist because there is no evidence for them.

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.

I'm ignoring it because it is such a silly argument. The whole universe was created just for a tiny population of humans occupying a negligible part of the universe for a brief instant in time to look at it and marvel at it? Seriously?

10^10^123 is the fact.

You are simply misunderstanding what that number means, then basing many of your arguments on it. See post 34.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #62]

So? that's the topic of the thread, did you disagree with him on something?

[Inquirer]

I'm ignoring it because it is such a silly argument. The whole universe was created just for a tiny population of humans occupying a negligible part of the universe for a brief instant in time to look at it and marvel at it? Seriously?

That's how it looks. I mean, how would it look do you think if that were the reason?

[Jose Fly]

So?

LOL...I just explained that.

that's the topic of the thread, did you disagree with him on something?

Sheesh....are you paying attention at all? We just went over that!

[Inquirer]

So?

LOL...I just explained that.

that's the topic of the thread, did you disagree with him on something?

Sheesh....are you paying attention at all? We just went over that!

I get it yes, you don't know what it could mean that the universe we live in seems have been fine tuned yet you won't entertain the idea that it could be evidence for God, for a creator - that's what not knowing means to you?

lets see if you can answer, what would the universe look like mathematically if it had been fine tuned by God to support life? I'll tell you, it would look like it does look!

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

That's how it looks. I mean, how would it look do you think if that were the reason?

I can't make any sense of this. Are you asking how I think the universe would look if it were created solely for us humans to marvel at? If so, I'd assume that would vary for each individual human. For me, I'd probably take Raquel Welch in her prime.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

That's how it looks. I mean, how would it look do you think if that were the reason?

I can't make any sense of this. Are you asking how I think the universe would look if it were created solely for us humans to marvel at? If so, I'd assume that would vary for each individual human. For me, I'd probably take Raquel Welch in her prime.

More or less, if the constants and initial conditions we have estimated look like fine tuning, what's wrong with inferring fine tuning? Occam's razor and so on? Why kick up a fuss "No, no, it can't be fine tuning, that's not science, that's delusional.." and so on.

[Jose Fly]

I get it yes, you don't know what it could mean that the universe we live in seems have been fine tuned yet you won't entertain the idea that it could be evidence for God, for a creator - that's what not knowing means to you?

Um....no. If that's what you took from today's exchange, I'm not really sure what to say. Do you even pay attention to the posts you reply to? Or do you just focus on things you think you can argue with, while missing the bigger contexts and larger points?

lets see if you can answer, what would the universe look like mathematically if it had been fine tuned by God to support life?

Since gods can do absolutely anything, the math could also potentially be anything.

I'll tell ye, it would look like it does look!

Or the exact opposite, or any other from an infinite number of possibilities. Again, gods can do absolutely anything.