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]

Either it was not constrained and God chose a very specific value or it was constrained and God chose a very specific constraint.

An example of a logical fallacy known as the ‘false dilemma’. You have included God as a supporting clause in each case when it’s not necessary to do so.

That's incorrect. What I said above is to show that by arguing it was not tuned (that there was just no option for the constant to be otherwise) one cannot eliminate a tuner. To argue it was constrained, could only ever be the value X is to argue that it was still tuned but in a different way, selecting a value is no different to devising a process that dictates a value.

[We_Are_VENOM]

<bolding added in my quote>

Hence my stressing ‘be careful’. At no point did I suggest that link should be ignored or dismissed.

Not so fast.

You were insinuating that we should be careful of X because it originates from Y source.

But we should check the accuracy of ANY source, regardless of where it originates from.

You were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and was exposed.

Yes, I’ve noticed they ‘draw the God conclusion’ - often making several unsubstantiated leaps of logic to get there as well.

Then, that is where you tell them which one of their premises are wrong and why.

Which, you haven't done with me.

But I see that you went on to agree that the specific example I gave (density of early galaxies) could be removed from that list.

Where did I agree to that?

You continued with your computerised dial and screen system analogy, but that’s really just rehashing your original argument, rather than challenging my specific point.

Well, my original argument was 10^10^123 odds...and I see no challenge to that specific point yet.

Finally, you address my point about fine-tuning not supporting the Genesis account by saying it’s irrelevant to the debate. Well, I’m not disputing its relevance, which is why I carefully added ‘tangential’ to the start of my point.

It has no relevance whatsoever, though. It was just a way to "cheap shot" the Genesis account on the way out, pretty much.

But if the argument is for theism in a general sense, then you must logically allow that the likelihood of the universe being fine-tuned by the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as great than it is for any other deity (or group of deities) in order to be consistent.

The fine tuner can be whatever your mind allows it to be.

Just as long as it is a fine tuner.

[We_Are_VENOM]

And again ... a completely wrong analogy which is very easy to dismantle. Consider the following two scenarios:

1) Life exists only on planet Earth, and nowhere else in the entire universe (highly unlikely statistically, but for the sake of argument assume this).

2) Life never developed on Earth or anywhere else, and never will.

Outside of our own tiny solar system (or really just Earth, but we do have "stuff" on the moon, Mars, crashed a spacecraft into Saturn, etc.), what difference would there be in the entire universe between these two scenarios? The answer is none, zero, diddly.

There would be difference....in one scenario, life exists in the universe...and in the other scenario, life doesn't exist in universe.

That is the difference.

So basically, you gave two different scenarios, and then maintained that there is no difference.

Makes no sense.

If all of your 50 dials had to land on exactly the correct number for life to materialize, then they would have to land on the right numbers for anything to materialize (eg. matter) that requires the same values for the dials (physical constants).

Something may in fact materialize, but life wouldn't.

Again, throw cards in the air, and you will expect different kinds of random card formations every time you throw them.

But will you ever expect for a card house to begin to formulate?

No, you wouldn't.

It is the same kind of thing going on here.

But a more parallel scenario; you only have ONE chance at a throw to get the card house to formulate.

It aint happening.

You're arbitrarily singling out life as if it is the only thing dependent on the physical constants being what they are. This isn't the case. Atoms, molecules, planets, stars, matter in general, all depend on the same physical constant values. The assembling of atoms and molecules into something called life (on one tiny planet no less) is not the exclusive outcome of the physical constants being what they are. So the physical constants cannot be claimed to be tailored (or "fine tuned") for life to materialize.

That is irrelevant.

That is like saying "all blocks which make up the pyramid of Giza depends on the same granite material."

Ok, fine, but that says nothing about how the pyramid was shaped, molded, and configured, and ultimately built to the structure that it is.

No one is saying that there was a meteorite that struck a 50,000 feet mountain which caused the mountain to collapse..and on impact, blocks from the mountain began to fall, and the resulting pyramid is the effect of the falling blocks from the 50,000 feet mountain.

No.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It's not this alleged God that concerns me. It is its followers whose beliefs and behaviours are having an unwarranted impact on the lives of those who do not share those beliefs. The US in particular appears to be verging on the slippery slope into a Taliban-like theocracy.

Nonsense.

If we are talking politics, then even if all politicians identified as non-religious (atheist), some of their policy decisions may ultimately still have an unwarranted impact on those who do not share the policy beliefs.

No one is forcing their religion on you...making you go to church or get baptized...no one is forcing you to say your prayers every night...no one is forcing Christ upon you.

So stop it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not an obsession with gods (there are many postulated to exist), but the influence of people who believe in gods on our everyday life. There is influence on laws, behavior, whether war or peace prevails, what is taught in schools, marriage and divorce laws, and a host of other things. Unicorns have no such influence. That is the difference.

EDIT: I see brunumb beat me to the punch and said the same thing ... I was typing when his post hit

Everyone is influenced by something...if it isn't religion, it is something else.

Even if you are an atheist, I assume you still have views on laws, behaviors, whether or not war is justified, what is taught in school, marriage and divorce, and a host of other things.

We all get our morals and values from somewhere, don't we?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I don't have an obsession with god/gods. There are at least four reasons I am interested in these discussions.

1. It's kind of like watching the Circus come to town. You don't really want to see the bearded lady, but you can't look away.

Yeah, but when you spend a significant amount of time (however many years you've been a member of this forum) talking about the bearded lady at the circus, this goes beyond fighting the urge to not look.

This is more like being obsessed with looking.

2. I was a Christian for decades and have a great a great deal of knowledge about the subject and therefore interest in these discussions.

Yeah, and I used to believe in Santa Claus (hint, hint).

When I stopped believing in Santa, that was it.

I'm not joining forums talking about him. I am not thinking about him. I am not debating people about his powers or abilities..his attitude towards naughty children, how many reindeers are required for his sleigh to ride effectively.

No.

3. I live in the U.S. and a great many people here believe in Bible god. Many of them think this belief should drive the laws and policies that effect our nation.

I used to live in Phoenix, AZ, where many people played soccer.

I don't play soccer. I think it is a boring game along with baseball.

So, I do not join soccer forums. I do not discuss the game with people (very rare). I do not discuss the history of the game.

4. There may very well be readers here who make the mistake of accepting the claims that are made here absent evidence. They need to be shown why that is a big mistake. Engaging believers and letting them reveal the weakness of support for their beliefs is at times more effective than pointing out their errors.

Tcg

Yeah, ok..

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #100]

Syllogism test...

1. The blueprint for building X was set long before the building was built.

2. Therefore, the blueprint was not a product of intelligence.

This is not an analogy for what I said, so is a strawman. A correct analogy would be this:

1. The physics, chemistry and processing techiniques for creating wood, steel, glass, etc. were set long before the building was built.

2. Therefore, the detailed construction of any building using these materials is independent of HOW the wood, steel and glass were created.

The physical constants were established billions of years before Earth formed, allowing the periodic table to exist and all the conservation laws, etc. These 'building blocks" of matter existed on Earth when/after it formed, an atmosphere formed, oceans, etc. without regard to HOW the physical constants got their values. Those conditions eventually became suitable for life to arise and people are trying to figure out exactly how that happened. And their research spends zero time asking how the physical constants got their values. It is irrelevant to this particular problem. Obviously they had to have their specific values for matter to exist in the first place (no one is disputing that). But HOW they got those values has no impact on how life arose on Earth.

Because see, there are two questions...

1. Is the Universe fined tuned for life.

if so...(and it is)

2. How did the Universe become fine tuned for human life.

If the latter part of the questions aren't a concern to you, then you are having the wrong discussion.

It is #1 that is the problem, not #2. You're simply asserting that #1 is correct, then forming conclusions based on that assumption. Since the answer to #1 is no, #2 is moot.

Some people just don't like the idea of a cosmic creator and that is what it really boils down to.

It is not about "not liking" the idea of a cosmic creator ... it is the complete lack of any empirical evidence that one exists to do any creating.

Penrose calculated the probability odds of life originating in this universe by random chance...and the probability is 1 chance in 10^10^123.

See post 34 (which you've yet to respond to). Pensose did not calculate the odds of life originating in this universe by random chance. You keep making that claim, but can't seem to respond to the explanations of what he actually did calculate (the odds of the initial conditions of the Big Bang resulting in a universe exactly like the one we have ... there is no mention of life anywhere in his book chapter where this 10^10^123 number was arrived at). I suppose you have to ignore this fact and stick with the numbers because your argument hinges on it, but as stated many times before ... the number is not what you keep claiming it is.

Nonsense. We know the conditions needed, and those conditions were met. The point is, those conditions wouldn't have been met given a high state of entropy...only low levels.

So you not only accept the Big Bang as THE mechanism for origin of the universe (it has not been proven yet, so the Nobel committee are eagerly awaiting your proof), you're claiming that humans know the exact initial conditions that were needed for it. Pretty strong claims for something no one else seems to know.

That is why if you throw 10,000 cards in the air, you don't expect a card house to formulate, because you know given such high levels of entropy, nature doesn't work that way.

Nature isn't random, so you wouldn't expect it to work that way. Throw a bunch of random chemicals into a pond and see what results when they combine (or not) according to the nonrandom rules of chemistry.

10^10^123 are the odds.

Not of life forming by mere chance. See post 34.

Nonsense. He doesn't argue anything for the second of law to be valid. The second law works in conjunction with the calculations.

Did you watch the video you posted? He referenced the second law to make the point that the entropy for the initial conditions of the Big Bang had to be lower than the entropy of the universe now, to avoid violating the second law.

Nonsense. "Fine tuned" means "precise" in every meaning within the context of this discussion.

Again, did you watch the video? He specifically said that the fine tuning in the initial conditions (the precision as he stated), was different from the usual use of the term fine tuning to refer to the physical constants. He's using fine tuning in the initial conditions as a synonym for precision in those conditions, without regard to physical constants at all.

That is what the number represents.

See post 34.

"..but with regards to gravitation.. it was very, very special, how special? You can actually work this out. the odds against this special initial state coming about by chance are less than 1 part of 10^10^123".

Point out where, in that quote, there is any reference to life originating, in this universe or any other.

So, according to Penrose, the number represents the odds against this special state coming about by chance, which is all I've been arguing for.

What?? You've been arguing that the 10^10^123 number represents the probability that life would occur by random chance (in nearly every post). I've been pointing out what you just said in the above quote, that this number is NOT the probability that life would arise by random chance, but is the "precision" in the initial conditions of the Big Bang needed (according to Penrose and his many assumptions) to have it produce a universe just like ours. These are not the same thing ... by a long shot.

So for you to accuse me of misrepresenting the number is quite disingenuous, but it does show in fact how you are just winging the entire conversation, instead of doing your due diligence in researching the material so that we can have an actual coherent conversation on the matter.

What (again)? You've been using this number all along (until the quote just above the prior quote) to claim it is the probability of life originating by pure chance, and now you're backtracking and apparently claiming you never did that and instead have been using it correctly (ie. odds of a Big Bang initial state producing a universe just like ours).

The next time you accuse me of mispresenting the number, I will simply paste that EXACT quote from Penrose. So, if I am mispresenting it, then so is he...and I would love to see a convo between you and him as you tell him how he is mispresenting his own calculation.

See post 34 (and the last parts of this one).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #103]

So basically, you gave two different scenarios, and then maintained that there is no difference.

Makes no sense.

You obviously misread what I wrote. The part you missed was the key part (underlining for emphasis this time):

"Outside of our own tiny solar system (or really just Earth, but we do have "stuff" on the moon, Mars, crashed a spacecraft into Saturn, etc.), what difference would there be in the entire universe between these two scenarios?"

The point was that outside of our solar system, life existing (or not) on Earth would leave the rest of the universe unchanged.

But will you ever expect for a card house to begin to formulate?

No, you wouldn't.

It is the same kind of thing going on here.

I think this is your fundamental problem ... you apparently believe everything that happens in the universe is either purely random, or guided in some way by an intelligent creator. This ignores all of the nonrandom processes like chemistry, evolution (natural selection), etc. This is the same "tornado in a junkyard producing a 747" kind of thinking, that does not represent how the real universe works.

[Inquirer]

I think this is your fundamental problem ... you apparently believe everything that happens in the universe is either purely random, or guided in some way by an intelligent creator. This ignores all of the nonrandom processes like chemistry, evolution (natural selection), etc. This is the same "tornado in a junkyard producing a 747" kind of thinking, that does not represent how the real universe works.

What do you mean when you write "the nonrandom processes like chemistry" ?

[Jose Fly]

This is a scientific discussion, do you think you can avoid terms like "Huh" and "um" and "Oh my", they only clutter up the posts.

Your concession is noted.