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]

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.

This is the typical atheist tailspin. Demand evidence then when that's presented refuse to accept it as evidence, just like in the New Testament, skeptics today can be shown profound and compelling evidence for God yet will reject it because they cannot bring themselves to abandon their materialist world of scientism.

If the cosmological constant were changed by even very small amount, life could never exist, this is evidence that the value was set for that very reason, it is blindingly obvious to me and many other people, science, physics reveals the creator but it's a hard pill to swallow so just keep believing the fantasy.

[Inquirer]

I've asked many times in many debates over the decades, with atheists who claim "I've never seen evidence for God" to tell me what it is that they'd need to see, I never get a straight answer.

When one has no criteria for what constitutes evidence then one can reject everything that is evidence.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #69]

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.

Why do you think it "looks" like fine tuning?

Fine tuning implies a tuner, and Occam's razor can hardly be invoked when there is no evidence for the tuner. Show us that tuners exist, then you can infer that one of them might have done the tuning and it would be a reasonable hypothesis. People who believe in gods can easily accept the fine tuning explanation because it falls right in line with the answer to anything that isn't yet known or explained. A very easy solution requiring no thought or effort.

[Inquirer]

Consider:

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #72]

I've asked many times in many debates over the decades, with atheists who claim "I've never seen evidence for God" to tell me what it is that they'd need to see, I never get a straight answer.

Empirical evidence as defined below (Wikipedia) would do it for me:

"In philosophy of science, on the other hand, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories. For this role, it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states, so that evidence may foster scientific consensus."

Do you believe that all of the thousands of gods that humans have invented existed, or exist now? Or just one or a few of them?

[Jose Fly]

This is the typical atheist tailspin. Demand evidence then when that's presented refuse to accept it as evidence

Um....what? This is getting positively bizarre. The only thing I asked for evidence of is the claim that the constants could have been different. Has anyone posted any evidence in response?

just like in the New Testament, skeptics today can be shown profound and compelling evidence for God yet will reject it because they cannot bring themselves to abandon their materialist world of scientism.

Dude, are you okay? You actually think your posts to me today constituted "compelling evidence for God"? Really?

If the cosmological constant were changed by even very small amount

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Again, no one has demonstrated that such a thing is even possible. Do you not grasp that?

life could never exist, this is evidence that the value was set for that very reason, it is blindingly obvious to me and many other people, science, physics reveals the creator

But you've not provided any support for your initial premise (constants could be different), which renders everything that follows from it moot.

but it's a hard pill to swallow so just keep believing the fantasy.

Wow, this is weird. Earlier I thought we agreed that "I don't know" is the reasonable position, but now you're arguing that not concluding that gods are the answer is a "fantasy"?

Are you having trouble remembering from one post to the next? Are you having memory issues? I ask, because I recently found out a creationist I'd interacted with before was actually in the early stages of dementia, and I feel terrible about getting on him for not remembering things. I'd like to not do that again.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #69]

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.

Why do you think it "looks" like fine tuning?

Because (for example) if the cosmological constant were to be changed by a miniscule amount life would not exist. Therefore if God wanted a universe where life can exist he'd have to set the constant to a very specific and very small value and that's exactly the value we observe. That a value would prevail that was random is unthinkable, is unrealistic, science is predicated on cause and effect and the effect of the universe existing with human beings existing and studying that universe is caused by (among other things) the cosmological constant. To me this is rather straightforward, I no longer have the egotistical baggage I once had.

Fine tuning implies a tuner, and Occam's razor can hardly be invoked when there is no evidence for the tuner. Show us that tuners exist, then you can infer that one of them might have done the tuning and it would be a reasonable hypothesis. People who believe in gods can easily accept the fine tuning explanation because it falls right in line with the answer to anything that isn't yet known or explained. A very easy solution requiring no thought or effort.

The tuning is the evidence for the tuner. A painting is evidence of a painter, a concerto is evidence of a composer, a book is evidence of a writer.

[Diagoras]

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).

I did follow that link. A few points arise from it.

Firstly, the source (“World”) has the tagline, “Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth”. So we should be careful in how much reliance we put on its conclusions, since ‘Biblical truth’ is not acknowledged as being the same as ‘scientific truth’.

Secondly, of the list of sixty parameters offered in support of the fine-tuning argument, the majority are clearly derived from the first few on the list, rather than being ‘independent’ like the gravitational force constant, for example.

42. density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history

Hugh Ross includes this in his list, but galaxy formation itself would be determined by things like the gravitational force, masses of protons, etc. The expansion of the list to include such ‘remarkable’ facts and present them as being as fundamental as something like the velocity of light just appears to be a way of bolstering the ‘image’ of fine-tuning.

Thirdly, I noticed this:

12. age of the universe

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy

if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

While somewhat tangential to the current debate, I observe that if this is to be taken as part proof of a fine-tuned universe designed by one or more gods, then it doesn’t fit very well with the biblical account in Genesis.

[Inquirer]

This is the typical atheist tailspin. Demand evidence then when that's presented refuse to accept it as evidence

Um....what? This is getting positively bizarre. The only thing I asked for evidence of is the claim that the constants could have been different. Has anyone posted any evidence in response?

You can argue that the constants are, were, highly constrained and could be no different, but that doesn't help you! The question then becomes what can explain a constraint on the values that is so very specific that that constraint and only that constraint can support life?

It's an utterly hopeless argument Jose.

just like in the New Testament, skeptics today can be shown profound and compelling evidence for God yet will reject it because they cannot bring themselves to abandon their materialist world of scientism.

Dude, are you okay? You actually think your posts to me today constituted "compelling evidence for God"? Really?

Yes.

If the cosmological constant were changed by even very small amount

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Again, no one has demonstrated that such a thing is even possible. Do you not grasp that?

See above, your line of reasoning is hopeless. Either it was not constrained and God chose a very specific value or it was constrained and God chose a very specific constraint.

life could never exist, this is evidence that the value was set for that very reason, it is blindingly obvious to me and many other people, science, physics reveals the creator

But you've not provided any support for your initial premise (constants could be different), which renders everything that follows from it moot.

What does "could" mean to you? In theoretical physics we can calculate the properties of a universe if we did have a different value, we can show that unless it has a very very specific value then life cannot exist. So whether it was "chosen" by God or "constrained" by God makes no difference!

but it's a hard pill to swallow so just keep believing the fantasy.

Wow, this is weird. Earlier I thought we agreed that "I don't know" is the reasonable position, but now you're arguing that not concluding that gods are the answer is a "fantasy"?

Are you having trouble remembering from one post to the next? Are you having memory issues? I ask, because I recently found out a creationist I'd interacted with before was actually in the early stages of dementia, and I feel terrible about getting on him for not remembering things. I'd like to not do that again.

Do you actually want to get reprimanded by the moderators? Please no personal remarks, no speculation on my mental fitness, just stick to the arguments please.

[Diagoras]

Either it was not constrained and God chose a very specific value or it was constrained and God chose a very specific constraint.

An example of a logical fallacy known as the ‘false dilemma’. You have included God as a supporting clause in each case when it’s not necessary to do so.