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]

You can argue that the constants are, were, highly constrained and could be no different, but that doesn't help you!

Let's see if giant font helps you remember....

My position is that we don't know if the constants could even be different.

That means I'm not arguing that they were constrained, as you seem to think. Do you understand?

Yes.

Huh...that's um....something.

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

Oh my....you really don't see the problem with "If A, then God; If not A, then God"?

That explains a lot.

What does "could" mean to you?

Seriously? You don't know what the word "could" means?

So whether it was "chosen" by God or "constrained" by God makes no difference!

So both A and Not A are "compelling arguments for God". If you don't see the problem there, I can't help you.

Do you actually want to get reprimanded by the moderators?

With you, I don't even care. Your posts and behaviors are so absurd at times, I'm still debating internally whether you're just trolling.

[brunumb]

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.

Syllogism test...

1. "We_Are_VENOM claims X is true."

2. "Therefore, X is true".

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test; FAILED.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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’.

Genetic fallacy.

It doesn't matter the origins of the information, the accuracy of the information should be all that matter.

And most of the religious folks who tout the teleological argument, presents the science/math first, and THEN draw the God conclusion based on inference.

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.

?

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.

Well, lets just stick with the gravitational force, then.

If the force of gravity was off, then say goodbye to stars, galaxies, and planets.

And that is just gravity itself.

Think of all of the constants..

Electromagnetic force contant
Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Cosmological constant

All of them have values, not to mention the initial condition parameters, which also have values...

This is what it would be like...

---------------------------------------------------------------


Imagine you had a small, computerized system with a turning dial on the front of it, and a screen on the system with the number 0 on it.

And when you turn the dial, numbers appear on the screen in random sequence, from the smallest number to the most largest, astronomical number you can think of.

Do you follow me so far?

Now, lets say there was one computerized system for every constant, and EVERY initial condition parameter (CICP).

So lets say you have about....ehhh, 50 computerized systems, one for every CICP.

Follow me?

Now, in order for life to begin, each system must be set at a specific dial (number).

*Whatever the value of the actual equations are, will be the number that each dial needs to be set at, which would obviously vary, depending on the CICP*.

Now, as we should know, some of these values for each CICP are very large and astronomical.

Follow me?

Now, imagine if there was a "start" button for you to press that would have ALL of the computerized system's dials to randomly stop on a number....and when you press "stop", the dialing would stop, and whatever number the dial lands on is simply the value of "juice" the CICP has.

However, in order for the universe to have life, the each dial has to be set at a SPECIFIC number, not any old number will do...if either dial lands on any number besides the ones calculated, no life would be permissible in this universe.

Follow me?

And that being said, you have ONE CHANCE for you to press the button ONE time...and one chance for all of the dials to turn to their respective CICP number for life to be permissible on this universe.

And I do emphasize on ALL THE DIALS HAVE TO BE SET TO THE RIGHT NUMBER....NOT 49/50, BUT 50/50.

And you have one chance to accomplish this.

Don't blow it.



That is what we are dealing with, people.

----------------------------------------------------------

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.

Irrelevant (not that it is true, anyway). The argument is for theism, not Christian theism.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Syllogism test...

1. "We_Are_VENOM claims X is true."

2. "Therefore, X is true".

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test; FAILED.

From now on..no substance, no response.

[brunumb]

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.

Nonsense. You are basing that on the prior belief that life was the ultimate purpose of the universe. That is not necessarily true. Life is just a happy, for us, outcome of the possibilities within this universe.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #77]

Because (for example) if the cosmological constant were to be changed by a miniscule amount life would not exist.

A lot of other things would be different too. Why choose just life? And if life did not exist in the universe now, or ever, it would have zero bearing on how 99.999999999999+% of the universe works or behaves. Life is completely insignificant to the universe's existence. If the Sun expanded and destroyed Earth tomorrow rather than a few billions years from now, and life had only existed on Earth, it would be a complete nonevent in the universe.

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.

Another worn out and wrong analogy, and begging the question. You're assuming that the physical constants were fine tuned (for life no less), then saying that because they were fine tuned that is evidence for a tuner. We don't need to assume painters, composers or writers because these things are known and easily proven to exist. A fine tuner for the universe has not been shown to exist, so it is not analogous to the other examples. You guys do need some new material!

[brunumb]

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.

Likewise, I have asked believers to present their most compelling reason for believing in God, particularly the Christian God, and the responses never fail to leave me gobsmacked. They apply criteria that set the bar so low that it necessarily requires gullibility or childhood indoctrination to accept their alleged evidence for God. It is hard to specify exactly what would be compelling evidence, but some tall tales from an ancient book or sermons from alleged God's spokespeople are well off the mark.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Ever notice that atheist/agnostics have this deep obsession with a God they don't believe in?

For example, I do not believe in unicorns and I could really care less about unicorn mythology or any stories related to it.

So, at what point will I become so obsessed with unicorns of which I do not believe in, that I will author books called..

The Unicorn Delusion (The God Delusion; Richard Dawkins).

Unicorns Are Not Great (God is not Great; Christopher Hitchens).

I want to say "you just can't make this stuff up"...because I don't need to make it up...because it is actually...true.

[brunumb]

Syllogism test...

1. "We_Are_VENOM claims X is true."

2. "Therefore, X is true".

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test; FAILED.

From now on..no substance, no response.

I'll take that as a win. The syllogisms that you so proudly present to fell your opponent's arguments are incredibly weak and obviously flawed.

[brunumb]

Ever notice that atheist/agnostics have this deep obsession with a God they don't believe in?

It's not this alleged God that concerns me. It is its followers whose beliefs and behaviours are having an unwarranted impact on the lives of those who do not share those beliefs. The US in particular appears to be verging on the slippery slope into a Taliban-like theocracy.