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 #109]

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

Just that ... chemistry is not random, neither is spectroscopy. Why is NaCl common but Na2 is not? When is the last time you encountered Ne2? The configuration of the outer electron shells impact how atoms combine to form molecules via ionic and covalent bonds. Crystal structures are also not arbitrary and random. Chemistry is not a random process.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #109]

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

Just that ... chemistry is not random, neither is spectroscopy. Why is NaCl common but Na2 is not? When is the last time you encountered Ne2? The configuration of the outer electron shells impact how atoms combine to form molecules via ionic and covalent bonds. Crystal structures are also not arbitrary and random. Chemistry is not a random process.

Very well, so next question, to what do we attribute this unexplained absence of random behavior?

[Jose Fly]

Just that ... chemistry is not random

Looking back, it's amazing how often I've had to make that very point to creationists. Apparently, many of them think chemists just get lucky when they synthesize molecules and compounds.

Makes me wonder how many of them have ever taken chem lab (or of those who did, how many paid attention).

[Inquirer]

Just that ... chemistry is not random

Looking back, it's amazing how often I've had to make that very point to creationists. Apparently, many of them think chemists just get lucky when they synthesize molecules and compounds.

Makes me wonder how many of them have ever taken chem lab (or of those who did, how many paid attention).

Well don't forget it was I who introduced you to James Tour, he had a lot to say about randomness and chemistry - if you were paying attention that is.

[Jose Fly]

Just that ... chemistry is not random

Looking back, it's amazing how often I've had to make that very point to creationists. Apparently, many of them think chemists just get lucky when they synthesize molecules and compounds.

Makes me wonder how many of them have ever taken chem lab (or of those who did, how many paid attention).

Well don't forget it was I who introduced you to James Tour, he had a lot to say about randomness and chemistry - if you were paying attention that is.

And....?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #112]

Very well, so next question, to what do we attribute this unexplained absence of random behavior?

Unexplained? I think I answered that as well. The configuration of the outer electron shells in atoms largely controls how they bond to other atoms via ionic or covalent bonds, whether these are single, double or triple bonds, etc. (Chemistry 101). So we can attribute the nonrandom bonding behavior to the fact that different atoms have different configurations of electrons in their outer shells.

How these conditions came about (anticipating the next question) is irrelevant to how the bonding works the way it does. Na and Cl form an ionic bond because the elecron configuration for Na is 1s2-2s2-2p6-3s1, and for Cl it is 1s2-2s2-2p6-3s2-3p5. Full orbitals are stable so if Na "donates" an electron to Cl it loses a half full s orbital, and at the same time the 3p orbital of Cl is filled (s orbitals can only contain 2 electrons, while p orbitals can hold 6). Note that it is the outer orbitals that are involved. By bonding they each get stable, filled orbitals and form a happy couple.

[Jose Fly]

How these conditions came about...

Is a gap in our knowledge, therefore.....God!

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #112]

Very well, so next question, to what do we attribute this unexplained absence of random behavior?

Unexplained? I think I answered that as well. The configuration of the outer electron shells in atoms largely controls how they bond to other atoms via ionic or covalent bonds, whether these are single, double or triple bonds, etc. (Chemistry 101). So we can attribute the nonrandom bonding behavior to the fact that different atoms have different configurations of electrons in their outer shells.

How these conditions came about (anticipating the next question) is irrelevant to how the bonding works the way it does. Na and Cl form an ionic bond because the elecron configuration for Na is 1s2-2s2-2p6-3s1, and for Cl it is 1s2-2s2-2p6-3s2-3p5. Full orbitals are stable so if Na "donates" an electron to Cl it loses a half full s orbital, and at the same time the 3p orbital of Cl is filled (s orbitals can only contain 2 electrons, while p orbitals can hold 6). Note that it is the outer orbitals that are involved. By bonding they each get stable, filled orbitals and form a happy couple.

So you attribute the absence of randomness to the presence of order?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #118]

So you attribute the absence of randomness to the presence of order?

Another leading question? As far as atoms bonding to form molecules, the electron orbital confurations are ordered (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p etc.). At least that is how us humans have classified and named them to facilitate our descriptions and discussions. Since the outer orbital electron population is involved in the bond formation, and these outer orbitals differ in their electron populations among atoms, the bonding of atoms to form molecules is not random. I made no attributions.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #118]

So you attribute the absence of randomness to the presence of order?

Another leading question? As far as atoms bonding to form molecules, the electron orbital confurations are ordered (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p etc.). At least that is how us humans have classified and named them to facilitate our descriptions and discussions. Since the outer orbital electron population is involved in the bond formation, and these outer orbitals differ in their electron populations among atoms, the bonding of atoms to form molecules is not random. I made no attributions.

Describing the nature of the order we observe does not serve to explain the origin of the order we observe.