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]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #142]

Right there is where we depart down different paths. To me that sentence reads like "And my science education says the "cause" was more likely the cause..." it is empty, a con, says absolutely nothing of substance. An absence of an answer pretending to be an answer.

Your stock response when someone doesn't buy what you're selling (apart from not including the word vacuous). Claiming fine tuning by some superior being provides absolutely nothing useful when no such being has ever been shown to exist. It is a textbook example of attributing something to a god being when you don't understand it. It does nothing to help answer any questions.

Any philosophical mindset that leads to such statements is - IMHO - deeply flawed. That one could be satisfied with such an answer, unashamed to seriously proffer it, amazes me and convinces me more that I am seeing all this correctly.

It was a very simple answer ... nature (the universe) developed from its origin point (which we don't know the details of yet) without the input from any imaginary god beings. If you can't understand something that simple I don't know what to tell you to help. And I'm not the least bit ashamed of not believing in imaginary gods, as amazing as that may seem.

If you cannot really see, appreciate the futility of your answer, then no wonder we disagree!

There's nothing "futile" about the answer ... just a lack of belief in god beings and taking an alternative view. You don't agree with it, so respond with the usual condescension.

Dr. You argued that nature is the cause of nature - if you find that satisfying and meaningful then good for you, I find it meaningless. Why do some atheists here repeatedly denounce theological claims yet at the same time with a straight face say stuff like this?

[Jose Fly]

I know you never claimed it, I'm suggesting you attempt it, in doing so you'll encounter the contradiction that I told you about.

You're suggesting I become a cosmologist and attempt to explain the origin of the universe, and only then will I see this alleged contradiction?

Are you a cosmologist?

[brunumb]

None of that speculation alters the fact that a miniscule change to the cosmological constant or the initial conditions and life would never develop, that's what the cosmologists and theoretical physicists conclude.

Irrelevant. The constants are what they are and the universe is here. No one knows why the constants have their specific values or even if any other values are possible. It's just a huge stretch to conclude that a few evolved apes are the reason for it all.

[brunumb]

I'd be embarrassed to post that, I mean really, "Prophet of Zod"?

I guess you have not watched the clip or considered any of the points made. Is that your way of not refuting any of them? And I'd be embarrassed by co-opting another poster's, albeit discarded, avatar. I'm also going to guess that you are good at tap dancing.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You left out some 4 billion years of evolution between throwing the chemicals in and getting humans.

I left it out for good reasons.

That process represents far more than just a few buckets of chemicals reacting after being thrown into the pond.

It does, doesn't it?

Still gotta get that consciousness in there somehow, too...which is an entirely different set of problems.

The point you've been making (and in title of OP) is about LIFE arising that otherwise would not if the physical constants (or Big Bang initial conditions) were not as they are/were.

Pretty much, yeah.

That's what I got out of it.

When you've mentioned atoms, chemistry, etc. not being possible without things playing out as they did, the reference was always to life arising.

What???

Life is ALWAYS the reference as it pertains to subjects related to a fine tuned universe.

You are insinuating that I have no justification for making the convo about life arising, when that has ALWAYS been the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

As you see here..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

So, please.

But the physical constants, atoms, chemistry, etc. could all be exactly as they are now WITHOUT life ever arising.

Which is a point that has no bearing on the 1 chance in 10^10^123 odds.

If the universe were fine tuned for life then life MUST arise as that would be the whole purpose of the exercise.

Um, no.

The argument is; under the right conditions, life will occur.

And those conditions were met, defying astronomical odds in the process.

Then the question becomes, how do you best explain it?

Then you examine all possible options, and you go with the best explanation offered to explain the effect.

And that is what was done.

I could equally claim that the universe was "fined tuned" for atoms to exist, and once that happened chemistry did its thing (regardless of whether life arose).

If you made that claim, you would have zero disagreements from my way.

Exactly as I said in my post.

Exactly as I've been saying since day one of the discussion

They need to have the values they do for atoms to exist, and life may or may not develop afterwards. There's nothing in the Penrose video or his book chapter relating to the 10^10^123 number that says anything about LIFE developing or its probability.

Nonsense.

Questions about the fine tuning of the universe involves the subject of life...and that is the question of the video.

You are beginning to come across as disingenuous, sir.

In the video he mentions how rare intelligent life may be, but the 10^10^123 number does not come from any consideration as to whether life develops, or not.

Nonsense. The question he was asked, concerned the universe and its fine tuning for life.

Then he clearly states that this particular "fine tuning" refers to the precision in the initial conditions of the Big Bang, and NOT the usual fine tuning in the physical constants (ie. they are not the same thing).

There is no "then he clearly states".

Either the universe is fine tuned for life, or it isn't.

And he said it is...he said it, other scientists said it, and science says it.

Even the Bible says it.

I can already tell this convo is coming to an end, as you've got nothing.

But thanks for helping me keep my teleological sword sharp..I haven't used that sword in a while and forgot how good of a weapon it is.

Thanks to you, I am reminded.

Again, this is EXACTLY what I said in my post! And you just repeated it in the above quote. Read what you quoted me as saying directly above, and your comment just below it. They are the same.

Well, if that is what youve been saying, then I am at a lost as to how this helps YOUR case here.

We've already traded one astronomically large number 10^123, for an even larger astronomical number 10^10^123.

Your argument would still have been placed in the coffin with just the 10^123 number, as I would have still been able to make the case.

But now with the 10^10^123 number, the coffin is closed and buried in a concrete grave.

So either way..

YOU are the one hanging your hat on the 10^10^123 number and the Big Bang as being THE correct mechanism for origin of the universe, and using Penrose as the source. I've stated multiple times that we don't yet know the mechanism for origin of the universe and that the Big Bang hypothesis has not been proven (and that I'm surprised you believe it so strongly

First off, you are WRONG in assuming that the argument as it relates to Penrose's calculations has to do with the standard Big Bang model being correct.

Guess what, it doesn't.

Penrose only mentions the Big Bang (BB) because the BB model has the most empirical evidence SUPPORTING it.

So, being the good scientist he is, he is speaking in relation to where the science currently is.

The implications of the initial conditions would apply to ANY cosmological model...in fact, Penrose stated that even if the multiverse hypothesis is true, then guess what?

The multiverse ITSELF would have to be fine tuned.

I also pointed out in post 34 (which, yet again, you've decided to ignore) that the Penrose calculation is based on a lot of assumptions and guesses.

There is no safe haven, sir.

Not even in post 34.

So my comment above about a singularity is perfectly consistent with my prior posts. It is you who are resting all you claims on the Big Bang being correct, and Penrose's calculation being gospel truth.

Find me any scientific objections to 10^10^123.

Im not entertaining red herrings.

And he explained that "fine tuned" refers to the precision in the initial conditions of the Big Bang (not the physical constants) to produce a universe identical to the one we have.

Right...initial conditions , which means you would have to defy the 10^10^123 odds before you even get to the physical constants.

Smh.

Ugly. Very ugly.

Second, the interviewer pressed him to get back on track with discussing those odds in relation to OUR universe and that is when Penrose confirmed those odds...in relation to OUR universe.

So you can stop the distractive "a universe identical to the one we have" stuff.

No, the discussion IS about the universe we have.

Then he elaborated on the details regarding life later on. The two points made in that regard were (as posted several times before), that other universes may have arisen with galaxies identical to ours (with life, obviously, if it is identical to ours) but be different elsewhere in the universe, or that life of a different type may have arisen. He made no guesses on what fraction of the total possible universes these alternatives might represent. Finally, he said considering only our galaxy or solar system, the 10^10^123 number would be ridiculously smaller (with no guesses on that either).

He was talking about the number being smaller as it relates to the physical constants if they were to have different values.

And again, that smaller number is only relative to the astronomical 10^10^123 number.

So again, I dont see how that helps YOUR case.

I don't buy any of it anyway because I don't believe we know enough about the initial conditions of the Big Bang to make such guesses, and I think the whole "fine tuning" idea is ridiculous and without any evidence whatsoever. I'm responding to your claims in the OP, but it really is a waste of time until someone can demonstrate that a "fine tuner" actually exists to do that work. So far, that is a complete dud.

Cool. Is that all you got?

Are we done?

*Tony Montana to Sosa*

"Can I go now"?

[otseng]

...just happens to be the one that you've spent a number of years of your life hell bent on saying it isn't so."

"If you educated yourself on this subject ..."

Yeah, um...listening comprehension.

Moderator Comment


Please debate without making personal comments.

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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #175]

Nonsense. The question he was asked, concerned the universe and its fine tuning for life.

And the comments he made regarding the 10^10^123 number were all about the precision needed for the initial conditions of the Big Bang to produce a universe exactly as we have. Life or no life was not a consideration in that precision assessment. It was based on second law considerations and the product of the total number of baryons (protons and neutrons) in the universe (10^80), times the entropy per baryon (10^43) for total entropy. Probability of life developing is nowhere to be found.

Either the universe is fine tuned for life, or it isn't.

And he said it is...he said it, other scientists said it, and science says it.

Even the Bible says it.

I can already tell this convo is coming to an end, as you've got nothing.

Probably good that it ends. No point in repeating the same things over and over, and you don't seem to want to understand what Penrose actually based the 10^10^123 number on. And if the Bible says it, then who can argue with that!

But thanks for helping me keep my teleological sword sharp..I haven't used that sword in a while and forgot how good of a weapon it is.

I hope you don't have to use it for anything important, or life threatening.

Find me any scientific objections to 10^10^123.

That is just a giant number. I don't know anyone who would argue that it isn't a giant number. It is what you are claiming it refers to that is completely wrong (ie. probability of life arising by pure chance in this universe). That is the crux of this whole argument, and despite breaking down the Penrose book description and video which clearly show what he actually meant by it, you stubbornly hold on to the erroneous interpretation.

Second, the interviewer pressed him to get back on track with discussing those odds in relation to OUR universe and that is when Penrose confirmed those odds...in relation to OUR universe.

So you can stop the distractive "a universe identical to the one we have" stuff.

No, the discussion IS about the universe we have.

Uh ... "our universe" and "a universe identical to the one we have" are the same thing!

Cool. Is that all you got?

Are we done?

"Can I go now"?

We're done ... brick walls.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

The only way to account for the fine tuning of our universe..there are only 3 possibilities..

1. Random chance:

2. Necessity:

3. Design:

Re [1] There is no evidence to support that there is such a thing as "Random Chance"

Re [2] Necessity implies mindfulness and thus design.

Re [3] Design appears to be the best choice. However, design in itself does not support that "therefore any religion is correct about the nature of the designer(s)."

So, even that Design appears to me to be the best option, it also appears to me that slipping one God-idea or another into the leading role of Designer, is cart-before-the-horse fallacy.

As to the question "Is The Universe Fine Tuned for Human Life?" - that is obviously only able to be answered as "No - not just Human Life" and indeed - we cannot even say with any certainty that life is restricted only to biological critters [on this or any other Earth-type planet] which might exist.

[Diogenes]

The 'fine tuned universe' is one of the most popular arguments for the existence of God.
It is also one of the worst. The argument calls for backwards thinking.

Let's take the flipping pennies analogy. The theist says, "This pattern of a trillion heads and tails could not have happened by accident, by chance." Yet that is exactly what happened. What the proponent is really saying is that this pattern of a trillion heads and tails would not be duplicated by the next series. This is correct. But we are only looking at one series: the series that got us to this point.

In other words, had the supposedly random* series of events been different, we would not be here to ask the question. This is the only universe we have. Yes, there could have been others..., but there weren't. This is the only one we know of.

Another way to look at it involves a question posed by one of my favorite comedians, Norm MacDonald. MacDonald suggested that there is no reason for living organisms to reproduce. Somehow he thought this was a 'proof' of God. It is not. If living organisms did not reproduce, we would not be here. There is no 'reason,' no purpose involved. WE are here because of a series of events that did not have to be what they were, happened, but because they happened we are here. If they had not happened, we would not be here. Something else would exist instead.
No divine intelligence need be assigned.

__________________
*I say 'supposedly' random because it actually is not random. At some point early on (or perhaps at the inception of the 'big bang' or whatever chaotic state the universe was in, certain fundamental laws developed. Once that happened, by chance, pure randomness ended and things progressed bound by those principles or fundamental laws. Again, no supernatural intelligence need be imposed as an explanation.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #179]

"This pattern of a trillion heads and tails could not have happened by accident, by chance." Yet that is exactly what happened.

There is no 'reason,' no purpose involved.

Those two statements are no different in nature than the religious arguments re GOD. They are not based in fact. They are based in opinion, swayed by preference of belief.