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.

[Inquirer]

This is something I'd never seen before, there's also a segment here where Richard Dawkins seems to admit he misrepresented the view of theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg and in fact misled the audience in a talk he'd given.

Seems Dawkins should stick to zoology.

[Inquirer]

Its far from clear to me, very hard to understand why some people are so opposed to the idea that there might be a reason for these constants.

On that question, I don't care one way or the other. My focus in this thread was on the specific arguments being put forth. It definitely strikes me as yet another God of the Gaps.

Physicists are puzzled, they do not regard the specific values we have as being random because (if they were random) the probability that a random selection of the values would take on exactly the values we see needed to sustain life, is vanishingly small it seems. This is why there's a search for some deeper theoretical reason that might tie the constants together.

I've yet to see anyone demonstrate that it's possible for the constants to even be different.

There's no theoretical reason why one should regard them as fixed, that's the short answer. If you want to argue that any of these constants can only ever have one very specific value then that claim would need some basis. The constants are just values that appear in various equations, we don't calculate them we observe them. The constants just "are" we do not know if there's a physical cause for the values they have, there's no theoretical basis for arguing these constants are constrained in any way.

This is what Barrow talks about in this conversation on the subject.

[Jose Fly]

There's no theoretical reason why one should regard them as fixed, that's the short answer.

And by the same token, there's no theoretical reason to regard them as variable. Thus, IMO the most reasonable position to take is "I don't know".

If you want to argue that any of these constants can only ever have one very specific value then that claim would need some basis.

You misunderstand my position. My position is not that they are fixed or variable. My position is that we don't know one way or the other.

[Inquirer]

There's no theoretical reason why one should regard them as fixed, that's the short answer.

And by the same token, there's no theoretical reason to regard them as variable. Thus, IMO the most reasonable position to take is "I don't know".

If you want to argue that any of these constants can only ever have one very specific value then that claim would need some basis.

You misunderstand my position. My position is not that they are fixed or variable. My position is that we don't know one way or the other.

Scientific inquiry doesn't stop at "I don't know" though Jose, it seeks explanations for things hence the opinions we're hearing from Penrose, Barrow, Susskind etc.

[Jose Fly]

Scientific inquiry doesn't stop at "I don't know" though Jose

I never said otherwise.

it seeks explanations for things hence the opinions we're hearing from Penrose, Barrow, Susskind etc.

Exactly...opinions, but nothing approaching a definitive answer. So there's a gap in our knowledge that once again, some theists try and wedge the gods into.

[Inquirer]

Scientific inquiry doesn't stop at "I don't know" though Jose

I never said otherwise.

it seeks explanations for things hence the opinions we're hearing from Penrose, Barrow, Susskind etc.

Exactly...opinions, but nothing approaching a definitive answer. So there's a gap in our knowledge that once again, some theists try and wedge the gods into.

If your position is "I don't know" (as you just claimed it was) then how can you not view this with an open mind?

[Jose Fly]

If your position is "I don't know" (as you just claimed it was) then how can you not view this with an open mind?

How am I not?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #47]

Here's Roger Penrose answering questions about this too, and he talks about Image the value We_Are_VENOM has been talking about.

This is the same video that WAV posted in another thread that started off this whole 10^10^123 thing (post 379 on this page):

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39396&start=370

If you missed that, you missed a lot of the earlier discussion on the topic. I posted a link to the Penrose book chapter in post 557 of that thread (and Difflugia also linked to the book in post 640 of the thread). If you just found the Penrose video, you missed a few dozen posts on the subject before this thread was started.

[Inquirer]

If your position is "I don't know" (as you just claimed it was) then how can you not view this with an open mind?

How am I not?

By saying "once again, some theists try and wedge the gods into" as if you somehow know that that's an invalid explanation. Furthermore what is surprising about theists attributing something to God? that's what theists do, especially in a forum such as this.

[Jose Fly]

By saying "once again, some theists try and wedge the gods into"

But that's accurate, as this thread shows.

as if you somehow know that that's an invalid explanation.

Except I've never said that either. If you'll notice, I've simply pointed out that the assertion that the constants could have been different is just that...an empty assertion. And by the same token, so is the assertion that they couldn't have been different. As we covered, the current state is that we simply don't know.

Yet some theists insist that 1) the constants could have been different, and 2) gods are the reason they're what they are. They also tend to present them as certainties.

So if you're looking for people to criticize for not keeping an open mind, you should start with those folks rather than folks like me whose position is "We don't know".

Furthermore what is surprising about theists attributing something to God? that's what theists do, especially in a forum such as this.

If they presented it as a belief or opinion, that'd be one thing. Presenting it as an established conclusion OTOH is quite different.