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.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #183]

Why would you need to imagine a god controlling this?

I don't. I Imagine a Mind which brought it into being. I cannot say with any certainty that I Imagine that said Mind is controlling this Universe.
What I Imagine is that there are subset minds involved and that these can act as mirrors re the overall Mind...

In that, I Imagine that the planet [Earth] has a Mind - which derived from a bigger form of Mind, which itself was begotten by the overall Universal Mind.
Furthermore, I cannot give the nod to my own mind, without realizing that I am experiencing the Universe from a position way deep down among the food-chain-on-a-need-to-know-basis.
If this muddy apish man has a mind, there is no way in hell I am going to laugh at the thought that the rest of the Universe isn't also Mindful.

My suspicion is that no God 'controls' the Universe, but one is working on doing so, from the inside, out. This God calls itself "Human" and worships his intelligence as supreme and wishes to take this into the heavenly night sky and somehow own it by controlling it enough to do so.

I figure that this reaction mirrors The Earths Entities own agenda and that is why things are going the way that they are going. The Earth Wishes to Spread Her Wings and She currently has Humans working on creating AI which will assist in this operation.

It is not that She isn't already "In The Heavens" but that she wants to be more pro-active in that regard...really get in amongst it all on a touchy-feely basis - something we Humans understand intimately.

Why do you have to insert a magical intelligence 'overseeing the process?'

I don't see anything 'magical' about the existence of Mind, no matter where it exhibits its presence.
The 'magical' is more to be seen in the Universe, independent of zooming in or out. Humans are bacteria on a dust-mote who just happen to be firing rockets into what they refer to as 'spacetime' and that is a 'magical' thing.

Just because consciousness is largely invisible, does not make it somehow 'super' natural.

It creates stages where stories are performed.

It is the stories which appear to be magical...because they are made real.

At least, that is what I am seeing from my vantage point walking the wall betwixt theism and non-theism positions on such matters as these.


viewtopic.php?p=1087156#p1087156

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

"The word entropy is used in several different ways in English, but it always refers to some notion of randomness, disorder, or uncertainty."

https://home.uncg.edu/cmp/faculty/srtat ... tropy.html

I guess being WRONG is a cool thing to be...on this forum.

Re [2] Necessity implies mindfulness and thus design.

You are wrong here too.

And this is apparent because if that were the case, the third option (design) wouldn't be needed, would it?

Think, people. Think.

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)."

Strawman. No one has argued that.

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.

Strawman. The argument in itself does not point to a specific God.

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.

Well, when you discover other life out there, we will add that life to the list.

Until then, 10^10^123 for this universe and this life.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #192]

Strawman. No one has argued that.

Strawman. The argument in itself does not point to a specific God.

I did not say that anyone was arguing that. I was pointing out that if anyone did argue that, it would be placing cart before the horse.

I guess being WRONG is a cool thing to be...on this forum.

Strawman. The OP has not shown anything right to be wrong about.

"The word entropy is used in several different ways in English, but it always refers to some notion of randomness, disorder, or uncertainty."

So what? This in itself does not mean that true randomness exists. It is a Human expression of a Human uncertainty, 'tis all.

Re [2] Necessity implies mindfulness and thus design.

You are wrong here too.

And this is apparent because if that were the case, the third option (design) wouldn't be needed, would it?

What - other than mindfulness - can decide what is necessary and what is not?

There is no requirement to assume the universe was a necessary thing which had to be created. There is enough complexity to work with in that it exists, without assuming it was necessary to create it.

[If you have any theories as to why this universe had to be created, I am open to hearing these.]

[Inquirer]

Oh dear, time to ease off the gas here boys, when I see stuff like this it rings an alarm: "The OP has not shown anything right to be wrong about."

[We_Are_VENOM]

I did not say that anyone was arguing that. I was pointing out that if anyone did argue that, it would be placing cart before the horse.

So basically, "what I said had no relevance to anything going on here, but I said it".

Gotcha.

So what? This in itself does not mean that true randomness exists. It is a Human expression of a Human uncertainty, 'tis all.

So, a shuffled deck of 52 cards being dealt isn't random?

What - other than mindfulness - can decide what is necessary and what is not?

So, is the truth value of 7+7=14 dependent upon any mindfulness?

Yes or no.

There is no requirement to assume the universe was a necessary thing which had to be created.

It depends on how you look at it, but I agree.

There is enough complexity to work with in that it exists, without assuming it was necessary to create it.

The necessity option was already ruled out. So since we agree that the option is bogus, nothing more needs to be said.

[If you have any theories as to why this universe had to be created, I am open to hearing these.]

See above.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Oh dear, time to ease off the gas here boys, when I see stuff like this it rings an alarm: "The OP has not shown anything right to be wrong about."

Well, with William..I don't know what side of the coin he is on.

Some posts it seems as if he is a theist (deist at best), and other posts he comes across as an atheist/agnostic.

Just like me and his latest correspondence on this thread...I thought he was raising objections, only to find out we were in agreement.

I dont know. *shrugs*

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #195]

So basically, "what I said had no relevance to anything going on here, but I said it".

Hang around these parts long enough, and someone will try it on...it has happened and will continue to happen.

As long as you are clear that you are not trying to inject some belief in some idea of GOD, we can agree that it is not the best way forward re the OP.

So, a shuffled deck of 52 cards being dealt isn't random?

That would entirely depend on the consciousnesses abilities. To most Humans, the shuffled deck would appear to be random. That does not mean that the Universe is random.

So, is the truth value of 7+7=14 dependent upon any mindfulness?

Yes or no.

The value, true or not, is dependent on mindfulness, yes.

[William]

Oh dear, time to ease off the gas here boys, when I see stuff like this it rings an alarm: "The OP has not shown anything right to be wrong about."

Well, with William..I don't know what side of the coin he is on.

Some posts it seems as if he is a theist (deist at best), and other posts he comes across as an atheist/agnostic.

Just like me and his latest correspondence on this thread...I thought he was raising objections, only to find out we were in agreement.

I dont know. *shrugs*

I walk the Wall between theism and atheism re The Question "Do We Exist Within a Creation?"

Most folk make the mistake of thinking that one has to be either theist or atheist re having a position on The Question.
Agnosticism is mostly understood to be a sub-category of atheism which is not the position I hold on The Question. I am not atheist, agnostic or theist.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Hang around these parts long enough, and someone will try it on...it has happened and will continue to happen.

They already did, at least once.

I had to let them know, too.

As long as you are clear that you are not trying to inject some belief in some idea of GOD, we can agree that it is not the best way forward re the OP.

The argument is for a Cosmic Designer.

That would entirely depend on the consciousnesses abilities. To most Humans, the shuffled deck would appear to be random.

Would appear to be random?

The deck is either random, or it is ordered.

Now which is it?

That does not mean that the Universe is random.

The universe as a whole began with very low entropy..and isolated systems do not begin with low entropy, do they?

No, they don't.

The value, true or not, is dependent on mindfulness, yes.

So, the truth value of 7+7=14 is dependent upon minds existing to conceive it??

You are treading shark infested waters here, Will.

Be careful now.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I walk the Wall between theism and atheism re The Question "Do We Exist Within a Creation?"

Most folk make the mistake of thinking that one has to be either theist or atheist re having a position on The Question.
Agnosticism is mostly understood to be a sub-category of atheism which is not the position I hold on The Question. I am not atheist, agnostic or theist.

Splitting hairs at its finest.

Sorry I commented on it.