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 Inquirer in post #220]

If the universe had been fine tuned just to enable us to exist, then what evidence for that could we expect to see? How would observations differ from what we actually do observe?

This sounds like the identical line of thinking you've put forth before regarding the Earth being made to look 4.6 billion years old but actually being much younger, and us not being able to tell the difference because the end result is identical in both cases.

There's no reason to believe that observations would be any different if the universe were "fine tuned" for life, or if life arose naturally on Earth (or elsewhere) because the conditions were suitable for that to occur. Why would you expect evidence to exist showing any differences? Some evidence for the existence of a creator/tuner would be a good start towards legitimizing the fine tuning argument. Until that appears, it is just an empty assertion.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #220]

If the universe had been fine tuned just to enable us to exist, then what evidence for that could we expect to see? How would observations differ from what we actually do observe?

This sounds like the identical line of thinking you've put forth before regarding the Earth being made to look 4.6 billion years old but actually being much younger, and us not being able to tell the difference because the end result is identical in both cases.

Nevertheless, it is a true statement there is no way to distinguish those two cases.

There's no reason to believe that observations would be any different if the universe were "fine tuned" for life, or if life arose naturally on Earth (or elsewhere) because the conditions were suitable for that to occur. Why would you expect evidence to exist showing any differences? Some evidence for the existence of a creator/tuner would be a good start towards legitimizing the fine tuning argument. Until that appears, it is just an empty assertion.

So the universe might actually be fine tuned then, that's what you're saying. People inferring that from observations are just as justified as those not inferring it.

The fine tuning is evidence of a creator, we infer creator from fine tunning and infer fine tuning from the extreme specificity of various constants.

[Diogenes]

The principle is probably better named the "observation selection effect." It is a fairly simple idea that recognizes that since intelligent life observes the universe, the other possible universes simply are not here because if they were, we would not be here to make the observation.

The anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, because observations could only happen in a universe capable of developing intelligent life.[2] Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the notion that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life

This is similar to my argument about 'backward reasoning.' The fact is here we are to observe the universe as is. This does not in the least suggest 'fine tuning' as if WE were the purpose in the first place for the universe being made. We are simply a product of what is. It is not necessary to purpose, design, or teleology to account for the present universe. It wasn't 'designed for us.' It takes an amazing degree of hubris and egocentrism to come to such a silly conclusion
The absurdity is clearly shown by positing an imaginary sponge, given consciousness for a moment and concluding the universe was "fine tuned just for us sponges."

If the universe had been fine tuned just to enable us to exist, then what evidence for that could we expect to see? How would observations differ from what we actually do observe?

The same as if it were fine tuned for sponges. The point is, there is no need to suppose a guiding, designing force. There is no need to suppose a 'god.' There is nothing to compel the conclusion it was designed by unicorns or anything else. It is a complete non issue invented by apologists out of nothing, just to fit the desire in a debate to claim 'god did it.' There is no need for the absurdly anthropocentric argument that it was all done for us. We are as important to the universe as bacteria and quarks. In other words not important at all. It is absurd to even ask the question. The universe just is and we are part of it, just like kittens, black mambas, SARS viruses and black holes.
We may not like where honesty, the search for truth, and Occam's Razor takes us, but there is no purpose to the universe or us, except what we wish to make for ourselves.

[Inquirer]

The principle is probably better named the "observation selection effect." It is a fairly simple idea that recognizes that since intelligent life observes the universe, the other possible universes simply are not here because if they were, we would not be here to make the observation.

The anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, because observations could only happen in a universe capable of developing intelligent life.[2] Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the notion that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life

This is similar to my argument about 'backward reasoning.' The fact is here we are to observe the universe as is. This does not in the least suggest 'fine tuning' as if WE were the purpose in the first place for the universe being made. We are simply a product of what is. It is not necessary to purpose, design, or teleology to account for the present universe. It wasn't 'designed for us.' It takes an amazing degree of hubris and egocentrism to come to such a silly conclusion
The absurdity is clearly shown by positing an imaginary sponge, given consciousness for a moment and concluding the universe was "fine tuned just for us sponges."

If the universe had been fine tuned just to enable us to exist, then what evidence for that could we expect to see? How would observations differ from what we actually do observe?

The same as if it were fine tuned for sponges. The point is, there is no need to suppose a guiding, designing force. There is no need to suppose a 'god.' There is nothing to compel the conclusion it was designed by unicorns or anything else.

What is this "need" you refer to? that sounds to me like a subjective opinion and we all have those.

It is a complete non issue invented by apologists out of nothing, just to fit the desire in a debate to claim 'god did it.'

Again, these are your subjective opinions but what do you mean "apologists"? what are they exactly?

There is no need for the absurdly anthropocentric argument that it was all done for us. We are as important to the universe as bacteria and quarks.

Yes and again these are your subjective opinions.

In other words not important at all. It is absurd to even ask the question. The universe just is and we are part of it, just like kittens, black mambas, SARS viruses and black holes.
We may not like where honesty, the search for truth, and Occam's Razor takes us, but there is no purpose to the universe or us, except what we wish to make for ourselves.

Lots of definitive statements coming up here Diogenes. Claiming it is "absurd" to ask questions and the values and specificity of the constants is "not important at all". You say "the universe just is" so I take it that means you're content to leave it unexplained? It being unexplained is preferable to you over positing some intent, some will being behind it. Saying something "just is" is to abandon rational inquiry IMHO, whatever reasoning led you to "it just is" cannot be scientific reasoning because "it just is" is not a scientific explanation.

[William]

My terms unless directly quoted...

[Replying to Diogenes in post #217]
My point was that we as humans don't know. My argument isn't irrational when taken in context. I explained that in my post. I did not say that we were humans before humans existed. I was simply saying that we may have created the whole thing in order to then play in it. That is why I wrote;

...through such theories as emergence and by discarding the notion that we exist within a creation which [as another type of Consciousness] we ourselves could have created for purpose, as a complex simulation we could then enter into and experience as a reality and shape the raw materials accordingly.

The problem with mine-quoting is that when one does this - quoting the other out of context - one then argues against something other than what was actually stated, as you are doing. This is what is referred to as creating a straw man.

I gotta say, I missed it too at first, even aware of your unique thoughts on the matter.

If Diogenes misunderstood, we now have clarification.

But I ain't ever seen Diogenes use tricks or disingenuous tactics, so that's maybe a misunderstanding on your part.

I have not seen Diogenes use such tactic before either, but I am not misunderstanding the reply made by Diogenes as it was a reply to a snipped part of my post, which lead to the branching off in argument and my having to make the adjustment back to what it was I was actually arguing.

But to your idea/s...

You cleared up for me a problem I couldn't quite sort out. I'd previously thought, "Wouldn't this consciousness be able to, say, have a long lost friend speak to me?"

Do you mean - have someone from the past turn up at your door, or some such thing like that?

Now though I realize that if you're correct, there's the idea of 'simulating' how my unique, if not truly individual consciousness would react to such a condition.

Not sure if we are on the same page here JK - is it along the lines of if I asked for rain in Colorado, and it happened, one who believes in coincidence wouldn't shift to believing that the planet was Conscious and responded to my request?

So, I'm still not fully on board, being a 'materialist', but I now see your logic in this situation.

Perhaps you can explain it to Diogenes then...

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #217]
My point was that we as humans don't know. My argument isn't irrational when taken in context. I explained that in my post. I did not say that we were humans before humans existed. I was simply saying that we may have created the whole thing in order to then play in it. That is why I wrote;

...through such theories as emergence and by discarding the notion that we exist within a creation which [as another type of Consciousness] we ourselves could have created for purpose, as a complex simulation we could then enter into and experience as a reality and shape the raw materials accordingly.

The problem with mine-quoting is that when one does this - quoting the other out of context - one then argues against something other than what was actually stated, as you are doing. This is what is referred to as creating a straw man.

I honestly do not understand your complaint. You wrote:

I don't see that the implication is that the universe was designed for 'us' as in 'human beings' but rather, for Consciousness to experience the universe through a huge variety of forms, which the universe provides.

We may even have been the one(s) who designed the universe for that purpose. It remains an unknown but considering we are the only known specie of our type [human] and we have progressed through various epochs - all of which could be seen to be fine-tuning us in relation to the universe we are experiencing and - through science - we are slowly understanding and adapting.

Whether or not you actually meant what you wrote, "We may even have been the one(s) who designed the universe for that purpose," or whether you meant consciousness in general, I see little difference. When something is "an unknown" why posit a god or other magical source and assume 'purpose'?
I try to edit responsibly, to give context, but also to avoid including extraneous, confusing dicta. You are responsible for your own complete sentences and paragraphs.

A central problem with the 'fine tuned universe' argument is its inherent assumption of a designer. This is the same assumption underlying the notion that there must be a purpose or 'meaning' to the universe. When one assumes the universe has meaning or purpose, one has already assumed there is a god behind it all.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #226]

Whether or not you actually meant what you wrote, "We may even have been the one(s) who designed the universe for that purpose," or whether you meant consciousness in general, I see little difference. When something is "an unknown" why posit a god or other magical source and assume 'purpose'?

It has not been established that consciousness [of any sort] has to be regarded as 'supernatural' or 'magic' et merda

A central problem with the 'fine tuned universe' argument is its inherent assumption of a designer. This is the same assumption underlying the notion that there must be a purpose or 'meaning' to the universe. When one assumes the universe has meaning or purpose, one has already assumed there is a god behind it all.

Until it is established either way, The Subject remains on the table of discussion re the question, "Do we exist within a creation?" "Assumption of a designer" is equal to "assumption of no designer" re The Question and possible answers. One is on the table, so naturally, the other too.

[Diogenes]

It has not been established that consciousness [of any sort] has to be regarded as 'supernatural' or 'magic' et merda

On the contrary, consciousness is hardly supernatural or magic, and there is no reason to suppose it is.
Tho' the exact mechanism remains a mystery it is easily explained in general by the 100 billion or more neurons in the human brain and the 100 trillion or more synaptic connections.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nnections/

... consciousness arises from interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain. Dennett describes consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. He compares consciousness to an academic paper that is being developed or edited in the hands of multiple people at one time, the "multiple drafts" theory of consciousness. In this analogy, "the paper" exists even though there is no single, unified paper. When people report on their inner experiences, Dennett considers their reports to be more like theorizing than like describing. These reports may be informative, he says, but a psychologist is not to take them at face value. Dennett describes several phenomena that show that perception is more limited and less reliable than we perceive it to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #228]

Your focus is on the human brain alone. It has not been established that consciousness only reside in and works through the human brain.

Nor did your post address my own.

I am forced to assume the position of "we don't know either way" re The Question "Do we exist within a creation?", rather than assume one way or the other, thus - from my position, The Subject remains on the table.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #228]

Your focus is on the human brain alone. It has not been established that consciousness only reside in and works through the human brain.

Right. I suppose you are free to think it comes from the feet, the heart or the stomach... or from some magical unknown 'god.' Whatever mystical mumbo jumbo you want to suppose, but I am tired of trying to use logic and science to explain things to you, or to address your irrelevant questions.