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]

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.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Please demonstrate that the constants and parameters could have been any values. So far, that is an unsupported assumption.

Your post lacks substance, as usual.

Just the same ole atheistic "You have no evidence" 2-5 sentence quip.

I propose that if your statement had it any substance, responses to it might need more of it.

If your argument can be so solidly refuted in a "2-5 sentence quip", that right there indicates the weakness of your argument.

Smh.

Might as well, you've got no other argument than to be upset at how your argument was defeated by means you consider beneath their dignity.

Anyways, the entire universe is contingent, it had a beginning..it didnt have to be here.

Whether it "had to be here", or not, is not dependent on invisible sky daddies.

If the universe is contingent, then the laws which govern it also must also be contingent.

"If" is a poor means of establishing truth.

Life did not have to be here...and if life did not have to be here, then life isn't metaphysically necessary..which is the main/only point of option #2.

As above, "had to", or not, doesn't require invisible beings to be the cause.

And btw, I am certainly not going to debate the finitude of the universe, not with you.

Why not? Because history has shown that you are either unwilling or incapable of having an in depth conversation about these subjects.

Lol

Give me a hundred on brunumb.

I may have such discussions with someone else, and I predict you will peek your head in the discussion for an occasional typical 4 sentence paragraph.

You might do better to argue the words, and not the how many of em.

That is all you've done thus far during my tenure on this forum, and I don't expect anything different.

I won't deb8 u coZ yUo don't Ddeb8 iN a WAY that Brings me comfort!

It's incredible the amount, and variicity of theist excuses to avoid debate on a debate site.

The same goes for fine-tuning itself. We don't even know that any sort of tuning was involved since we don't have any deep knowledge of the actual process involved in the formation of the universe.

I already addressed this (predicted it) in the latter part of the OP.

FYI
viewtopic.php?p=1088356#p1088356

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

I see a couple problems here.

1. At best you show that our universe is fine-tuned for life in general. You haven't shown it is fine-tuned for human life.

2. You are presenting a false dilemma because you are only putting up 3 possibilities when in fact there are many more. You probably haven't looked much into philosophy.

For example, there are godless forms of panpsychism that explain fine-tuning.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

I see a couple problems here.

1. At best you show that our universe is fine-tuned for life in general. You haven't shown it is fine-tuned for human life.

If the universe wasn't fine tuned for human life, then there would be no human life, would there?

2. You are presenting a false dilemma because you are only putting up 3 possibilities when in fact there are many more. You probably haven't looked much into philosophy.

Well when you name those many more possibilities, then I will add them to the list.

For example, there are godless forms of panpsychism that explain fine-tuning.

Fine tuning is needed for any given natural phenomena.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #283]

If the universe is fine-tuned for life in general, then Humans could come to be because they are alive, and so could aliens, etc. To say the universe is fine-tuned for human life is to claim that it was designed specially for humans. It could be specially designed for humans, but we cannot know that from fine-tunning alone.

Panpsychism is not a natural phenomenon. It is the idea that consciousness is a thing that exist in reality. It is its own property. We have material properties and we have conscious properties. Conscious properties could very well explain fine-tuning if they are active participants in the world.

Then of course we have the view that the fine tunning is caused by gods.

Then we have the view that fine-tuning is caused by aliens who originated in another universe and caused this one via technologies.

Then we have the view that fine-tuning is caused by retro causality, where the past caused the future as much as the future causes the past, such as in Klee Irwins Self Simulating Universe.

Then we have the idea that the fine-tuning is caused by us humans. We became advanced enough in the real world to create an artificial world, a simulation, which we are living in. The real world is not fine-tuned at all.

There are more views, but I think that is enough to show that there are more views that need to be ruled out.

[brunumb]

If the universe wasn't fine tuned for human life, then there would be no human life, would there?

The existence of human life does not mean that the universe was fine tuned for it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If the universe wasn't fine tuned for human life, then there would be no human life, would there?

The existence of human life does not mean that the universe was fine tuned for it.

I understand that people who think like you don't like the "fine tuning" label, because of the intelligent design connotation that comes along with it.

Ok, how about this...let me rephrase it..


"If the naturalistic conditions required for human life were not met, then there would be no human life now, would there be?"

How about that? Is that better for you?

[brunumb]

If the universe wasn't fine tuned for human life, then there would be no human life, would there?

The existence of human life does not mean that the universe was fine tuned for it.

I understand that people who think like you don't like the "fine tuning" label, because of the intelligent design connotation that comes along with it.

Ok, how about this...let me rephrase it..


"If the naturalistic conditions required for human life were not met, then there would be no human life now, would there be?"

How about that? Is that better for you?

So what? That still doesn't mean that the conditions were specially formulated with human life as a goal.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So what? That still doesn't mean that the conditions were specially formulated with human life as a goal.

Well, that is your one-sentenced opinion, which can't hold a candle to the entire case I made which proves otherwise.

So, unless you have anything of substance to add, we will just have to agree to disagree and keep it moving.

[brunumb]

So what? That still doesn't mean that the conditions were specially formulated with human life as a goal.

Well, that is your one-sentenced opinion, which can't hold a candle to the entire case I made which proves otherwise.

So, unless you have anything of substance to add, we will just have to agree to disagree and keep it moving.

You made no case so a one sentence refutation of what you said was all it deserved.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You made no case so a one sentence refutation of what you said was all it deserved.

Ok. So it got what it "deserved".

Moving along.