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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #88]

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

Not an obsession with gods (there are many postulated to exist), but the influence of people who believe in gods on our everyday life. There is influence on laws, behavior, whether war or peace prevails, what is taught in schools, marriage and divorce laws, and a host of other things. Unicorns have no such influence. That is the difference.

EDIT: I see brunumb beat me to the punch and said the same thing ... I was typing when his post hit

[Tcg]

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

I don't have an obsession with god/gods. There are at least four reasons I am interested in these discussions.

1. It's kind of like watching the Circus come to town. You don't really want to see the bearded lady, but you can't look away.

2. I was a Christian for decades and have a great a great deal of knowledge about the subject and therefore interest in these discussions.

3. I live in the U.S. and a great many people here believe in Bible god. Many of them think this belief should drive the laws and policies that effect our nation.

4. There may very well be readers here who make the mistake of accepting the claims that are made here absent evidence. They need to be shown why that is a big mistake. Engaging believers and letting them reveal the weakness of support for their beliefs is at times more effective than pointing out their errors.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

From now on..no substance, no response.

That's surprisingly and uncharacteristically self-aware of you.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #83]

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 again ... a completely wrong analogy which is very easy to dismantle. Consider the following two scenarios:

1) Life exists only on planet Earth, and nowhere else in the entire universe (highly unlikely statistically, but for the sake of argument assume this).

2) Life never developed on Earth or anywhere else, and never will.

Outside of our own tiny solar system (or really just Earth, but we do have "stuff" on the moon, Mars, crashed a spacecraft into Saturn, etc.), what difference would there be in the entire universe between these two scenarios? The answer is none, zero, diddly. If all of your 50 dials had to land on exactly the correct number for life to materialize, then they would have to land on the right numbers for anything to materialize (eg. matter) that requires the same values for the dials (physical constants).

You're arbitrarily singling out life as if it is the only thing dependent on the physical constants being what they are. This isn't the case. Atoms, molecules, planets, stars, matter in general, all depend on the same physical constant values. The assembling of atoms and molecules into something called life (on one tiny planet no less) is not the exclusive outcome of the physical constants being what they are. So the physical constants cannot be claimed to be tailored (or "fine tuned") for life to materialize.

[Diagoras]

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.

<bolding added in my quote>

Hence my stressing ‘be careful’. At no point did I suggest that link should be ignored or dismissed.

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.

Yes, I’ve noticed they ‘draw the God conclusion’ - often making several unsubstantiated leaps of logic to get there as well.

You seemed initially confused by this part of my post:

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.

But I see that you went on to agree that the specific example I gave (density of early galaxies) could be removed from that list.

You continued with your computerised dial and screen system analogy, but that’s really just rehashing your original argument, rather than challenging my specific point.

Finally, you address my point about fine-tuning not supporting the Genesis account by saying it’s irrelevant to the debate. Well, I’m not disputing its relevance, which is why I carefully added ‘tangential’ to the start of my point.

In which case, your little ‘(not that it is true, anyway)’ remark must be similarly irrelevant.

But if the argument is for theism in a general sense, then you must logically allow that the likelihood of the universe being fine-tuned by the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as great than it is for any other deity (or group of deities) in order to be consistent.

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Final Warning


This would be considered a personal attack and would be against the rules.


Please review the Rules.




______________



Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Inquirer]

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.

This is a scientific discussion, do you think you can avoid terms like "Huh" and "um" and "Oh my", they only clutter up the posts.

[Inquirer]

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.

Science tells us that thing happen for reasons, that's what scientific investigation is predicated on, that there's a reason, there's cause -> effect, and that if we are diligent we can establish relationships between things.

If the universe had been fine tuned specifically to support life like us then we'd see what we do see, extremely specific values for certain constants that by sheer coincidence just so happen to be exactly the values needed for us to exist.

[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.

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.

The universe is evidence of something, the inherent mathematical structure of material laws is evidence of something, the fine tuning is evidence of something, my self awareness is evidence of something - like many here you likely regard these things as astounding, spectacular, incredible yet want to argue that the reason for them is nothing, you really think that inference is intellectually sounder than God?

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Sooo, did you not give a hypothetical (analogy) involving a car with coffee spilling on the fabric seat?

Or am I having delusions?

Now sure, it was an analogy that I originally provided, but since you offered a counter-analogy in response to it, the analogy became your own (separate, but your own).

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).

Syllogism test...

1. The blueprint for building X was set long before the building was built.

2. Therefore, the blueprint was not a product of intelligence.

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test; failed.

That is literally your rationale here.

This is not me stretching or reaching for something that isn't there...this is literally how you are rationalizing this stuff.

SMH.

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.

Well again, this discussion is not for you, then.

Because see, there are two questions...

1. Is the Universe fined tuned for life.

if so...(and it is)

2. How did the Universe become fine tuned for human life.

If the latter part of the questions aren't a concern to you, then you are having the wrong discussion.

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

Right, because the idea is; if science even hints intelligent design, then reject the science.

I know the game.

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.

Well again, the calculations and values are established...the question is; how is it best explained (back to the question of "how").

Now, you act as if you aren't concerned with the how, which is probably why you didn't address any of the 3 competing hypothesis (well, you did address the design option), but not the other two.

1. Random chance
2. Physical necessity

I already showed why neither of those work...so design is the best explanation, whether we'd like to admit it or not.

Some people just don't like the idea of a cosmic creator and that is what it really boils down to.

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.

Demonstrate whether or not two of the three options needed to explain the effect are plausible, and then you'd have a basis for negating the design option.

Without that, we appeal to the best explanation; intelligent design.

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.

It has to do with life originating in this universe.

Lets stick to what it does have to do with...and stop creating these strawmen that no one is arguing against.

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?

I will not be distracted with strawmen and red herrings.

Penrose calculated the probability odds of life originating in this universe by random chance...and the probability is 1 chance in 10^10^123.

All we care about is the universe of which we live in, and even the mere mentioning of other universes is a red herring.

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).

Well, when you go out and discover these possible universes, I will be glad to ask Mr. Penrose.

Until then, my focus is on this universe, you know, the one we live in.

I'm still surprised you so strongly believe in the Big Bang hypothesis and Penrose's number.

The surprise is having a 1 chance in 10^10^123, and winning.

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.

There is a 1 chance in 10^10^123, that our universe would be life permitting by pure chance.

This means that the initial conditions had to be fine tuned (parameters set) from the onset of the big bang.

All of the parameters (values) must have been fined tuned, relative to each other...every value had to have been precisely set to a specific value.

This is stuff engineers do, not Mother nature.

10^10^123 means that things began with a very low (understatement) level of entropy...and we know based on how entropy works, that the levels should have been extremely high.

This suggests the parameters (values) were set at the moment of the big bang.

Mother nature doesn't set parameters. But engineers do.

Thus, intelligent design.

We don't know the conditions at the instant of the Big Bang, or its entropy (and neither does Penrose).

Nonsense. We know the conditions needed, and those conditions were met. The point is, those conditions wouldn't have been met given a high state of entropy...only low levels.

And we know that nothing begins with low levels of entropy, not without intelligent intervention.

That is why if you throw 10,000 cards in the air, you don't expect a card house to formulate, because you know given such high levels of entropy, nature doesn't work that way.

So the fact that you grant that^, but yet reject the implications of a extremely low level of entropy (10^10^123), is the taxi cab fallacy.

It is fine to ride the taxi around all day and night when it comes to accepting how things work as it relates to entropy and card houses (or anything similar), but once this (which requires even MORE low levels of entropy), you jump out of the taxi because you don't like the idea of a Cosmic Creator.

That is your problem, not mines.

Anyways..

10^10^123 are the odds.

He's arguing that for the second law of thermodynamics to be valid

Nonsense. He doesn't argue anything for the second of law to be valid. The second law works in conjunction with the calculations.

The low entropy was needed, and now we are headed towards equilibrium, according to, you know, the second law...which is, is one of the most understood and "battle tested" laws in all of science, never failing.

, 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).

Nonsense. "Fine tuned" means "precise" in every meaning within the context of this discussion.

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.

The initial conditions of the big bang had to be mathematically precise for life to have originated in this universe, and the probability of that happening is 1/10^10^123.

That is what the number represents.

And btw...



You can watch the whole video...but here is an excerpt..starting at around the 2:58 mark..

"..but with regards to gravitation.. it was very, very special, how special? You can actually work this out. the odds against this special initial state coming about by chance are less than 1 part of 10^10^123".

Then he goes on to say that certain people are aware of those fine tuning implications, but he says that this IS fine tuning, there is no escape.

So, according to Penrose, the number represents the odds against this special state coming about by chance, which is all I've been arguing for.

So for you to accuse me of misrepresenting the number is quite disingenuous, but it does show in fact how you are just winging the entire conversation, instead of doing your due diligence in researching the material so that we can have an actual coherent conversation on the matter.

The next time you accuse me of mispresenting the number, I will simply paste that EXACT quote from Penrose. So, if I am mispresenting it, then so is he...and I would love to see a convo between you and him as you tell him how he is mispresenting his own calculation.