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.

[brunumb]

Then is the purpose of the physical existence some sort of test period to measure the suitability for an afterlife of some kind?

In which case one would expect an omni-benevolent deity to have ensured a level playing field for all human beings. In reality that is very far from being the case.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #237]

... the material physical existence is not why we exist.

Then what is the point of our physical existence? If the entire universe is "fine tuned" for humans to exist, and this is not based on our material physical existence, what is it based on? If it is some sort of spiritual existence, why bother with frail and short-lived human bodies and their physical existence at all? A universe of spirits pervading its space would seem to make a lot more sense (if you believe in spirits and souls and that sort of thing).

This is one of the things Christian theology strives to wrestle with, much of what was said by Christ in the NT is profound and outside of our material philosophies. I do not know the "correct" answer, but much can be gleaned from the Bible. Having said that the reason seems to be connected with us coming to terms with a world of our own making, relying on our own thinking and decision making, experiencing life where God is not present in our thoughts, self reliance and so on. All of us too eventually die, we must all face that one day. It is the experiences of physical life that prepares us for conversion, prepares us to eventually recognize we are powerless in this universe without God, then God can begin to reveal himself to us, it is a for of preparation. God wants us to develop character and the only to do that is to experience life.

You cannot assess God's motives or reasons for doing things unless you know God's goals and I don't think you do.

Then is the purpose of the physical existence some sort of test period to measure the suitability for an afterlife of some kind? I suppose you'd have to know the motives of the god in question to answer that question, and if that isn't known then any guess is as good as any other as to why we humans do have a material physical existence. If the NT explains it, would that not allow one to infer the god's motives?

The OT and NT speak of these things, not linearly though, a bit here a bit there, I does seem too that if we - all of us on earth today - were given eternal life as God has, then chaos would ensue, we simply have not gained the wisdom.

[Inquirer]

Then is the purpose of the physical existence some sort of test period to measure the suitability for an afterlife of some kind?

In which case one would expect an omni-benevolent deity to have ensured a level playing field for all human beings. In reality that is very far from being the case.

There's the point I made earlier "one would expect" - God in numerous places in scripture reminds us that if we reason our own way, things will lead nowhere. This seems to be "Lesson 1" stop trying to fathom out things using human logic and reasoning, LISTEN to God.

[JoeyKnothead]

I do not know the "correct" answer, but much can be gleaned from the Bible. Having said that the reason seems to be connected with us coming to terms with a world of our own making, relying on our own thinking and decision making, experiencing life where God is not present in our thoughts, self reliance and so on.

Yet so many Christians'd refuse a woman the right to her own decision making.

All of us too eventually die, we must all face that one day. It is the experiences of physical life that prepares us for conversion, prepares us to eventually recognize we are powerless in this universe without God, then God can begin to reveal himself to us, it is a for of preparation. God wants us to develop character and the only to do that is to experience life.

Unsupported, unsupportable assertions.

The OT and NT speak of these things, not linearly though, a bit here a bit there, I does seem too that if we - all of us on earth today - were given eternal life as God has, then chaos would ensue, we simply have not gained the wisdom.

Meh.

They lost me at "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

[JoeyKnothead]

There's the point I made earlier "one would expect" - God in numerous places in scripture reminds us that if we reason our own way, things will lead nowhere. This seems to be "Lesson 1" stop trying to fathom out things using human logic and reasoning, LISTEN to God.

How might one listen to a mute?

Funny thing about the bible, it's bound solely to human logic and reasoning, as it rails against such use.

A shyster's dream.

[Inquirer]

There's the point I made earlier "one would expect" - God in numerous places in scripture reminds us that if we reason our own way, things will lead nowhere. This seems to be "Lesson 1" stop trying to fathom out things using human logic and reasoning, LISTEN to God.

How might one listen to a mute?

Funny thing about the bible, it's bound solely to human logic and reasoning, as it rails against such use.

A shyster's dream.

From the person who cannot define "truth" such claims means very little.

[JoeyKnothead]

There's the point I made earlier "one would expect" - God in numerous places in scripture reminds us that if we reason our own way, things will lead nowhere. This seems to be "Lesson 1" stop trying to fathom out things using human logic and reasoning, LISTEN to God.

How might one listen to a mute?

Funny thing about the bible, it's bound solely to human logic and reasoning, as it rails against such use.

A shyster's dream.

From the person who cannot define "truth" such claims means very little.

From one who can't show God exists, your claims mean nothing.

[Inquirer]

There's the point I made earlier "one would expect" - God in numerous places in scripture reminds us that if we reason our own way, things will lead nowhere. This seems to be "Lesson 1" stop trying to fathom out things using human logic and reasoning, LISTEN to God.

How might one listen to a mute?

Funny thing about the bible, it's bound solely to human logic and reasoning, as it rails against such use.

A shyster's dream.

From the person who cannot define "truth" such claims means very little.

From one who can't show God exists, your claims mean nothing.

Is that true though?

[JoeyKnothead]

Is that true though?

When you extend me the courtesy of answering questions I put to you, I'll be happy as a hog in the mud to answer them questions you ask of me.

[Inquirer]

Is that true though?

When you extend me the courtesy of answering questions I put to you, I'll be happy as a hog in the mud to answer them questions you ask of me.

When you extend me the courtesy of clarifying ambiguous questions you ask me, I'll happily answer them.