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 #120]

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

This seems to be a random comment. Who is trying to explain the origin of the order we observe? This thread is about the universe being "fine tuned" for human life, and you started the recent exchange with a question about the nonrandomness of chemistry, which does not depend on HOW (or why) atoms formed in the early universe, only that they did ... for whatever reason and by whatever mechanism).

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

No, the strawman is coming from you.

Because don't have to know how X was created in order to infer a creaTOR.

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.

Then for the fourth time, this is not the debate for you...because the thread calls for sought out explanations to explain the effect.

In fact that is the holy grail of science; seeking to answer questions of how and why.

If you aren't interested in providing answers to those questions, then there is nothing for us to discuss here.

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.

No, I am not merely asserting #1 is correct....I actually made a case for it via observation and experiment (entropy) along with probability odds.

The conclusion drawn is based on inference from the data, along with a process of elimination which involves three options, leaving one option.

And of course the option which prevails just happens to be the one that you've spent a number of years of your life hell bent on saying it isn't so.

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.

Any evidence which has supernatural implications is rejected.

That is just the name of the game.

No evidence will ever be good enough to convince people who do not want to be convinced.

Either way, 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. You were provided the information from not just Penrose, but other physicists as well.

They all conclude that life is fine tuned for life to exist...and Penrose specifically mentions the gravitational constant in the latest video I shared...which one of the four fundamental constants needed for life to originate in this universe.

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.

Yeah, it is called, SCIENCE.

Look at how now it is safe to reject science because such contemporary discoveries have supernatural implications.

If you educated yourself on this subject (just a Google search away), you would know how those conclusions were reached.

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.

If I throw chemicals in a pond and the result is a Swamp Thing looking creature that crawls to the shore, I will be thoroughly impressed.

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.

You make it seem as if he is insinuating that the universe made a conscious decision for the entropy for its initial conditions to be lower at the Big Bang than it has now.

Thus; "to avoid violating the second law".

He is implying entropy was lower, BECAUSE IT CANT violate the second law.

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.

Yeah I watched the video..

The title/question of the video is..Is The Universe Fined Tuned for Life and Mind?

Penrose answer is at 2:52 of the video.

The answer is...YES.



Second, the initial conditions at the big bang was needed for ANY LIFE to originate in this universe.

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

In the above video, are they talking about life? Isn't the question of the video about whether life is fine tuned?

So, why are you misrepresenting reality?

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.

Well obviously, if the universe' initial conditions had low entropy, the impeding results would also be low entropy and thus NOT RANDOM, but highly ordered.

But isolated systems (without intelligence) are of high entropy.

So why would the initial conditions be so low at the big bang...but high in every other case.

Makes no sense and there can be no naturalistic explanation.

Second, Penrose is the one who used the 10^10^123 in the context of random chance...not me.

So take that up with him.

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).

Again, it is Penrose who used it, not I.

[Difflugia]

Makes no sense and there can be no naturalistic explanation.

Except for his own "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology." That's a naturalistic explanation. He wrote a book about it.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #120]

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

This seems to be a random comment. Who is trying to explain the origin of the order we observe? This thread is about the universe being "fine tuned" for human life, and you started the recent exchange with a question about the nonrandomness of chemistry, which does not depend on HOW (or why) atoms formed in the early universe, only that they did ... for whatever reason and by whatever mechanism).

I get it, chemistry is non-random, that was never contested, it is the reason, the cause of the laws governing atomic orbitals and so on, that I asked you about. You said "chemistry is non random" so tell me why? why is the universe not a random jumble of chaos?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Makes no sense and there can be no naturalistic explanation.

Except for his own "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology." That's a naturalistic explanation. He wrote a book about it.

Fair enough. Excerpts?

[Diagoras]

From the opening post:

Now, it is well known and established in science, that the constants and values which govern our universe is [sic] mathematically precise.

Let’s first agree on which are the 26 ‘fundamental constants’:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... fdd7254b7c

These are:
The fine-structure constant
The strong coupling constant
The masses of the six quarks, six leptons, and three massive bosons. (15 in total)
The four quark- and four neutrino-mixing parameters
The cosmological constant.

Not the ‘100’ claimed from the linked article in that opening post.

Note, from the Forbes article:

“there are still four puzzles that may yet require additional constants to solve.”

I find it helpful for all debaters to agree on the premises of an argument, so I suggest we stick with ‘26 known’ for now.

To maybe clear up another point, from the opening post:

If you start with a highly chaotic, random, disordered big bang, the odds are astronomically AGAINST the manifestation of sentient, human life.

Post #35 (page 4):

You are continuously placing the cart before the horse and you're not addressing the bigger issue of how can low entropy have been an initial condition of the big bang...and how could those parameters have been so mathematically precise from the onset?

<bolding mine in both cases>

Please clarify. Were the initial conditions of the Big Bang high or low entropy?

[Diagoras]

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.

Took me a while to work through this. Fair enough, and if you want to restate your claim a different way that avoids ambiguity (e.g. words like ‘selecting’ and ‘dictates’), then I’m happy to read it.

[Diagoras]

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?

I took your response in post#83 as tacit agreement when you said:

Well, lets just stick with the gravitational force, then.

Since then of course, I’ve realised that the gravitational force isn’t one of the 26 fundamental constants, but the broader point remains.

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.

Thanks for putting the FSM on an equal logical footing (tentacling?) with the rest of the gods.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #122]

If I throw chemicals in a pond and the result is a Swamp Thing looking creature that crawls to the shore, I will be thoroughly impressed.

If they reacted to create NaCl in solution, or amino acids, would you be impressed? It depends on what you throw in of course, but the point was that chemical reactions are not random as you seem to be assuming.

Thus; "to avoid violating the second law".

He is implying entropy was lower, BECAUSE IT CANT violate the second law.

These are identical. If the second law is valid, then it can't be violated, therefore the entropy at the Big Bang had to be lower than it is now (due to the second law).

They all conclude that life is fine tuned for life to exist...and Penrose specifically mentions the gravitational constant in the latest video I shared...which one of the four fundamental constants needed for life to originate in this universe.

Life is fine tuned for life to exist? Not sure what that means, but it isn't just life that wouldn't exist if the gravitational (or other constants) had random values different than they have now. You keep singling out life as if it were the only thing what would have played out differently had the constants been different. Matter itself may not exist, or antimatter would have won out over matter (and we still don't know exaclty why that happened), etc. Life existing, or not, is a miniscule, insignificant part of the equation.

Penrose answer is at 2:52 of the video.

Really? Here are some excerpts:

0:44: "Now usually, when people talk about this fine tuning, they're talking about something quite different. They refer to the constants of nature."

Then they go on from the end of that statement, until the 2:52 time you mention talking about fine tuning of the physical constants (NOT the initial conditions of the Big Bang) and how their present values may be required for life as we know it, but different values may produce life of different kinds. None of this relates to the 10^10^123 number.

2:52: "Now there's fine tuning in the origin of the universe, which has to do with the second law of thermodynamics, it has to have been extraordinarily precise, if fact is has to have been at least as precise as 1 part in 10^10^123 ..."

Then he goes on to point out that the precision needed in the (few) physical constants is nothing by comparison and are dwarfed by the precision needed for the initial condition of the Big Bang to get a universe identical to ours, for the entire universe, and that the anthropic argument is useless for explaining this precision level.

"4:10: That number is ... the precision is so incredibly enormous ... because you have to do it for the whole universe. If you just had to do it for our solar system, or for our galaxy, the number would be ridiculously smaller."

There is no comment on quantifying "ridiculously smaller", but obviously that would reduce the 10^10^123 number drastically, and it does not refer to life originating in any way, but in a universe identical to ours existing from the total number of initial conditions of the Big Bang. You've stolen the 10^10^123 number as a probability for life originating by pure chance, and that number has nothing to do with a probability for life originating.

But isolated systems (without intelligence) are of high entropy.

We have no idea what the exact conditions at the Big Bang were. Our math says it was a singularity, meaning we don't understand it completely.

Second, Penrose is the one who used the 10^10^123 in the context of random chance...not me.

Again, it is Penrose who used it, not I.

Yes, but he used it as the precision needed for the initial condition of the Big Bang in order for that event to produce a universe just like ours out of all the other possibilities. My point all along (see post 34 again ... why no response to that?) is that you are using the 10^10^123 number as a probability for life originating by pure chance, and referencing the Penrose calculation as a basis, when he arrived at that number without any consideration of whether life would arise, or not. That is the crux of the issue.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #124]

I get it, chemistry is non-random, that was never contested, it is the reason, the cause of the laws governing atomic orbitals and so on, that I asked you about. You said "chemistry is non random" so tell me why? why is the universe not a random jumble of chaos?

Who cares why? It is how physics and chemistry developed and how it works. I've never claimed to know why, and don't care. It has no bearing on my life in any way whatsoever, or in how life developed on this planet. I think the prevailing theory is that at the initial stages of the universe it was so hot and chaotic that only naked quarks and electrons were running around bashing into each other, then it cooled enough for the quarks to form protons and neutrons, then it cooled further allowing electrons to join the party and atoms to form, then eventually H and He, which eventually formed stars, etc. and some 9 billion years later our star formed, and Earth came in existence.

My clock starts 4.6 billion years ago for asking how life developed because we do actually know something about how the planets formed, and how the geology and atmosphere of Earth developed over time. We have a chance to get serious about the question rather than postulating the fine tuneness of the initial conditions of the Big Bang, or the physical constants, etc. ... neither of which relate to HOW life arose from nonliving matter (if it did). Chemistry worked as it does before that process started, so it is irrelevant HOW atoms developed to have different configurations of their outer shell electrons causing nonrandomness in chemical bonding and reactions. A useless diversion as far as how life began on this planet.