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.

[Difflugia]

Something I've always wondered about with threads like this...

To the theists making this argument, why do you feel so compelled to try and appeal to science as supporting your belief in gods? Are your personal experiences, scripture, and faith not sufficient for you?

Those are sufficient for most of the people making these arguments. The veneer of science acts as a sort of plausible deniability. "I'm justified because of apparent fine-tuning" is equivalent to "this fifth of Jägermeister will help my digestion." When someone calls shenanigans, I don't have to provide evidence that's actually convincing, but evidence that is just convincing enough that it's plausible that I believe it. Subjective experiences and the enjoyment of inebriation aren't widely considered to be good reasons for religious belief and excessive consumption respectively, but they are the most common reasons. Having a backup reason that's plausible enough to deny the actual reason shifts the discussion away from whether or not the behavior is symptomatic of laziness or amorality respectively and toward whether the description of the behavior is properly descriptive in the first place.

"Faith is intellectually lazy" is a less comfortable discussion for the faithful than "you're just not squinting enough at the science."

"You're a drunk" is less comfortable than "but the herbs... the Germans... um... medicine... what were you saying?"

[Jose Fly]

So you were referring to science in the sense of the subjective human activity.

Unless I missed something, humans are the only entities we know of that practices science.

I was referring to the objective structure and nature of what the activity is concerned with.

That's not science, that's what we apply science to.

[Inquirer]

That's not science, that's what we apply science to.

Precisely, and what I've explained to you before is that we can't apply science to science. No process can be explained in terms of itself - this is the truth that I was referring to earlier.

If you really do seek to understand (which is what makes a scientist) then you must surely seek to understand not only the universe but the presence of that universe.

[Jose Fly]

Those are sufficient for most of the people making these arguments.

It doesn't seem like it to me. Seems like they think appealing to science to support their beliefs is pretty important. Otherwise, why do they keep doing it?

The veneer of science acts as a sort of plausible deniability. "I'm justified because of apparent fine-tuning" is equivalent to "this fifth of Jägermeister will help my digestion."

That seems to contradict the above. "I'm justified because of apparent fine-tuning" is only necessary when faith, experience, and scripture aren't enough by themselves.

When someone calls shenanigans, I don't have to provide evidence that's actually convincing, but evidence that is just convincing enough that it's plausible that I believe it.

I agree. As someone pointed out to me long ago, apologetics aren't really to convert the non-believer; their main purpose is to reassure believers that their beliefs are justified.

Subjective experiences and the enjoyment of inebriation aren't widely considered to be good reasons for religious belief and excessive consumption respectively, but they are the most common reasons.

That's not really the case in the religious circles I've been in. Being overcome by the spirit, speaking in tongues, healing the sick, and prophetic dreams are all seen as very good indications that the underlying beliefs are valid.

Having a backup reason that's plausible enough to deny the actual reason shifts the discussion away from whether or not the behavior is symptomatic of laziness or amorality respectively and toward whether the description of the behavior is properly descriptive in the first place.

"Faith is intellectually lazy" is a less comfortable discussion for the faithful than "you're just not squinting enough at the science."

"You're a drunk" is less comfortable than "but the herbs... the Germans... um... medicine... what were you saying?"

So what you're saying is, they realize that since other people will not see subjective experiences, faith, and scripture as persuasive, they must appeal to something that society does usually find persuasive....science.

IOW, threads like this are testament to the fact that society generally sees science as more authoritative than religious experiences, faith, and scripture. So the theist feels compelled to argue that their beliefs are supported by science.

[Jose Fly]

Precisely, and what I've explained to you before is that we can't apply science to science. No process can be explained in terms of itself - this is the truth that I was referring to earlier.

And I didn't. As I said, the existence of science is explained by one simple fact....humans invented it.

If you really do seek to understand (which is what makes a scientist) then you must surely seek to understand not only the universe but the presence of that universe.

That's why we have cosmology.

[Inquirer]

Something I've always wondered about with threads like this...

To the theists making this argument, why do you feel so compelled to try and appeal to science as supporting your belief in gods? Are your personal experiences, scripture, and faith not sufficient for you?

Those are sufficient for most of the people making these arguments. The veneer of science acts as a sort of plausible deniability. "I'm justified because of apparent fine-tuning" is equivalent to "this fifth of Jägermeister will help my digestion."

Please be so good as to explain why choosing to interpret the specificity of natural constants and the necessity of that specificity for life to exist, being indicative of a creator, elicits such a disparaging reaction from you?

[Inquirer]

Precisely, and what I've explained to you before is that we can't apply science to science. No process can be explained in terms of itself - this is the truth that I was referring to earlier.

And I didn't. As I said, the existence of science is explained by one simple fact....humans invented it.

If you really do seek to understand (which is what makes a scientist) then you must surely seek to understand not only the universe but the presence of that universe.

That's why we have cosmology.

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

[Jose Fly]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

[Difflugia]

Otherwise, why do they keep doing it?

To convince you that they're rational and reasonable.

That seems to contradict the above. "I'm justified because of apparent fine-tuning" is only necessary when faith, experience, and scripture aren't enough by themselves.

That's right. Faith is enough to be convinced themselves, but if they want to argue with you, faith is a non-starter.

That's not really the case in the religious circles I've been in. Being overcome by the spirit, speaking in tongues, healing the sick, and prophetic dreams are all seen as very good indications that the underlying beliefs are valid.

And they don't waste time talking about fine-tuning with each other. They're slain in the Spirit when they're with their fellows. With you, it's fine-tuning.

So what you're saying is, they realize that since other people will not see subjective experiences, faith, and scripture as persuasive, they must appeal to something that society does usually find persuasive....science.

IOW, threads like this are testament to the fact that society generally sees science as more authoritative than religious experiences, faith, and scripture. So the theist feels compelled to argue that their beliefs are supported by science.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

[Inquirer]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?